I

“Shakespeare's time had generated an unprecedented enthusiasm for English as a literary medium, for the scope, flexibility and beauty of the language”(7). It is the meaning in this first quote that draws people to read Shakespeare again and again. The complexity of the language has been the focus point of more scholarly papers than I can count. Still, with almost everything possible criticized about the multiple texts he wrote, and the debates and conclusions assumed on a variety of scholar approaches, there still remain new points of view on his works.

Close reading of any given text by Shakespeare can give us insight to word play used by Shakespeare in his comedy The Merry Wives of Windsor. “Shakespeare uses prose for comic, often subversively comic, purposes, as the medium”(7). Simply put, in order of class, the lower the character is, the more likely the character would speak in prose. Verse was used for the higher-class characters.

Word play can be used for either high class or low class characters. I t can also be used in different ways. Syntax, or word that has two meanings, is one way, making the reader wonder, “Does the word, here, have a literal meaning or is it meant in another context?” Thus, close reading must be employed. “The Merry Wives of Windsor has been relatively neglected in the criticism of Shakespeare's comedies and what attention it has received has centered very largely on Falstaff”(7). This couldn't be more true, but he is not the only character in the play. Falstaff is accompanied by his servants, Bardolph, Robin, Pistol and Nym. These characters have fallen short of criticism and among them Nym has received the least.

All of them, even Falstaff, are presumed to be exiled from Eastcheap, but the others are outsiders or outcasts or thieves, knaves or just plain lower class. As the plot is carried out, we see the characters being both deceivers and deceived. All but Nym, who will in no way have anything to do with his master's plans to deceive Ford and woo his wife, play out in the last act during Falstaff's embarrassment due to his shortcomings in the ways of wooing married women. “Nym's obsessively repeated catchword, "humours," is another symptom of social pretensions; as one of Ben Jonson's characters explains, in its current usage of the word signified "a gentlemanlike monster, bred in the special gallantry of our time by affectation, and fed by folly”(7). Yes, a word he repeats often. In fact, in the thirteen opportunities he has to speak in the play, all but one includes the word “humor.” In close reading of this play, the Folger edition (8) gives a longer note in reference to humor. This expanded note reads:

humors: In early usage, humor referred to the bodily fluids of blood, phlegm, black bile, and yellow bile; later, the term referred to the dispositions, character traits, or moods thought to be caused by these fluids, and then to moods or whims in general. In Nym"s language, the word becomes so vague as to have no real meaning. (8)

Although the word “humor” has added or changed or edited its definition, I find it hard to believe that Shakespeare would plant a word to be used as often as it is by one character that has no meaning. Close reading would be required as a challenge to the statement made by the Folder edition that “In Nym's language, the word becomes so vague as to have no real meaning”(8). Nym and Pistol are described in criticisms as “swashbuckling swordsmen”(7). Page describes him as “a drawling, affecting rogue” (7) and, by critics again, “As for Nym, his vocabulary is minimal, and he cannot form a phrase without the word "humor" in it”(5). Page comments, after listening to Nym tell Ford of Falstaff and his intentions toward his wife, “The humor of it, quoth he? Heres a fellow frights English out of his wits.” (II.i.127 ) Nym does not see himself this way. He states, “will keep the havior of reputation” (II.iii.79) and is not present for the Falstaff embarrassment, plus excuses himself from delivering the letter to Page, how then does the “limited vocabulary” affect the nature of his character to be less than honorable?

The constant use of the word “humor,” most likely out of context, has lead critics to believe he is a knave, a thief, a swashbuckler. In fact, it is a comedy. The word humor is “... then, so to speak, "in play," and is used with increasing frequency”(3). Although Nym is a character in a comedy, he is not the only Shakespeare character that repeats one word, "humour", frequently. Othello uses the word “honest” repetitively. Othello and Nym both are soldiers by trade, both seen as outcasts or outsiders in each play by the accompanying characters. There is no mention in either play of the characters' lineage. Nym a knave and Othello a hero yet use one word of ten. This statement is not interested in one play being a tragedy and the other a comedy. Still, both repeat one word. Yet, Nym is the character that speaks in slang.

He is also using his word, according to the Folger edition as a “word with no real meaning.” There is reason to believe that this repeating does have meaning in the use of word play. It is no secret that Shakespeare's culture is reflected in the plays and close reading of the text can help us to see that. Perhaps the word “humor” as defined by the Folger edition of The Marry Wives of Windsor, has an incorrect assumption of possible definitions listed in the edition. The Oxford English Dictionary (10) has several meanings for the word “humor,” spelled both as “humor” and “humour.” Definition number three is one that could serve as an alternative meaning to the word “humor” thus adding depth to the meaning when used by Nym. Definition number three defines “humor” as “inclination; intention”(10).

Changing the understanding of what “humor means when spoken by Nym gives the character a level of recognition has has not enjoyed thus far. “To follow the workings of this extraordinary network of word play is to encounter the importance of language

not in an old New Critical sense but as a way into the contemporary historical and social resonances of the language on which such word play depends”(6). By close reading practices a possible gap in our dictionaries exist making them incomplete. This does not seem feasible since a working definition, available at the time the text was written, was available. The Folger edition, and critics of this play, have overlooked a definition that can fit the overused word “humor.” Claiming this without looking again at the lines Nym speaks would be irresponsible. When Nym speaks to Page, he is seen as a knave because of his use, or overuse, of the word “humor.”

Nym: (to Page) And this is true. I like not the humor of lying. He hath wronged me in some humors. I should have borne the humored letter to her; but I a sword, and it shall bite upon my necessity. He loves your wife; there's the short and long. My name is Corporal Nym, and Falstaff loves your wife. Adieu. I love not the humor of bread and cheese. Adieu (He exits). (II.1.130)

In re-reading the passage, understanding the word “humor” as defined by “inclination; intention”, Folger has does a great injustice to Nym by not including it in the edition as a possible alternative for the meaning of “humor.” Perhaps it is not Nym's vocabulary that is minimal but instead an overlook in definition choices. “The verbal analysis came when I looked at the text to see what support it gave to these impressions”(3). Close reading was essential in seeing the overused word in a different perspective.

It would seem that Falstaff is not the only one that sports injury when The Merry Wives of Windsor is read. It would seem the reader is also duped.

In comedy, “Verbal analysis is not going to weaken the main shape of the thing” (3). Instead, it only strengthens and clarifies the language in which Shakespeare wrote this play.

II

We have seen Nym as a knave without looking at the character of his character. Instead, “humor” has been the focal point of his flawed character. He is accompanied by Othello in the overuse of one word. An alternative definition, or overlooked one, has been offered by the author of this paper. A closer examination of the word “humor” is necessary when used by Nym in The Merry Wives of Windsor, to further aid in answering the question, “What significance does this word have, if any?”

Shakespeare's language, by no means, is easily read by the audience (meaning reader) of today. Definitions accompany pronunciation as language evolved and changed over time. No one can dispute that the amount of books written on Shakespeare's language could fill rooms. Glossaries also play a key part in examining word meaning used by characters in Shakespeare's plays. Shewmaker (9) offers definitions of “humor” but extends (not to say that other dictionaries or glossaries do not) the definition of a word to that of a word used in a phrase.

Under the word “humor” in his glossary (of unfamiliar words), Shewmaker (9) offers the phrase “good humors indeed!” What is so interesting about this phrase is defintion number eight uses a line from The Merry Wives of Windsor spoken by Nym as the definition:

8 pass good humors, be careful what you say:

“Be advised, sir, and pass good humors...” (Wives I. i150) (8)

Offering a definition of a word by use of a phrase does give an overall meaning to the word, by pulling in an example of how the word might be use. Thus giving meaning to the word and meaning, in addition to depth, to the character.“... Falstaff in a greedy scheme to con the government by recruiting understrained and underpaid solders; rather he is, from the opening of the play helpless before the pickpocket expertise of Pistol and Nym...”(7). Here, we are told of an underpaid soldier, Nym, pickpocketing his master. A third definition of the word “humor” can be offered based on Nym's “pickpocket expertise.”

It is no surprise that a soldier is underpaid, even today, but Nym takes matters into his own hands to survive in the service of the man who holds the purse, Falstaff. By reading into Nym's actions, a definition offered by Onions (2) states:

“2 Comply with the peculiar nature of (something), adapt oneself” (2)

By “adapting” to his situation, Nym is able to survive, drink, eat. This definition is also overlooked by Folger and not offered as a defition of his character, even though it is assumed as "flawed" . His actions can lead to an understanding of what the word “humor” means to the character Nym.

III

There is little written on Nym, most likely because the character's part is small. Yet his overuse of a word has, at least, given him some cause to be written about as a “mentioned character” when discussing Falstaff. Nym has no paper of his own. Until now. His use of the word “humor” has meaning. His vocabulary is not limited.

The shortcomings of understanding Shakespearen language and meaning is of today's time. The word can mean an action taken, an intention or a phrased metaphor. We just need to do a close reading of dictionaries and glossaries. The definitions are there. Offering them in the context is up to those who write definitions. And, perhaps, in the word of Nym himself, to those who have not seen this flaw by avoiding close reading:

“Slice, I say. Pauca, pauca. Slice, that's my humor.”(I.i.130)

Love at first sight is a simple concept. However, it can be experienced at many different levels of love. In Romeo and Juliet, the moment Romeo sees Juliet, he immediately devotes himself to her. He says “The measure done, I'll watch her place stand/ and touching hers, make blessed my rude hand. / Did my heart love till now? Forswear it, sight, / for I ne'er saw true beauty till this night” (Shakespeare 53). Shortly after Romeo meets Juliet, he immediately woos her and kisses her, forgetting entirely about Rosaline, his previous love. Their experience of love at firs sight was so intense that they forgot to even tell each other their names. Claudio and Hero' experience of love at first sight is not quite as spectacular. When Claudio is talking to Prince about Hero he says “O, my lord, / when you went onward on this ended action, / I looked upon her with a soldier's eye, / that liked but had a rougher task in hand / than to drive liking to the name of love. / But now I am returned and that war thoughts / Have left their places vacant, in their rooms / Come thronging soft and delicate desires, / All prompting me how fair young Hero is…” (Shakespeare 25) Here, Claudio says that he had liked Hero before, but now he is ready to make a move, he likes her but he does not go crazy about her. He doesn't really know what to do though. So Prince offers to woo her sometime soon in the name of Claudio while wearing a mask. Romeo is clearly much more vigorous and reckless than Claudio, who is much more conservative and thoughtful. The drastic difference in Much Ado About Nothing is that Hero does not even know that Claudio loves him at all until that night. Pace of the love is clearly different in the two plays. Romeo and Juliet's experience of love at first sight is much faster paced and intense, While Claudio and Hero's is much more laid back and careful. Love at first sight is only one aspect of love that is in both plays.

The manipulation of love is a common thing in both plays. In Much Ado About Nothing, almost all the main characters participate in a scheme to get Benedick and Beatrice, who are bitter enemies, to love each other. Prince says, “I will teach you how to humor your cousin /, that she shall fall in love with Benedick; / and I, with your two helps, will so practice on Benedick that, / in despite of his quick wit and his queasy stomach, / he shall fall in love with Beatrice. If we can do this, / Cupid is no longer an archer: / his glory shall be ours, for we are the only love-gods” (Shakespeare 69) Prince, Hero, Leonato, and Claudio try to make Benedick and Beatrice love each other by telling each that the other is crazy about them. This makes them look upon the other in a new light and eventually love. Also in Much Ado About Nothing, Claudio is fooled by Don Jon to believe out Hero has been cheating on him, Friar tries to makes everything better by faking Hero's death to make Claudio realize how much he loved Hero and to feel bad about how he treated her so that they could get back together when Hero is “resurrected”. In Romeo and Juliet, Capulet tries to manipulate Juliet to love Paris when she already loves Romeo. “Thank me no thankings, nor proud me no prouds, / But fettle your fine joints "gainst Thursday next / You go with Paris to Saint Peter"s Church, / Or I will drag thee on a hurdle thither” (Shakespeare 167). While Capulet's strategy is to force Juliet to the wedding, believing that she will be happier when she gets married and gives her no choice in the matter and Capulet's plan fails. Friar Lawrence in is in a similar predicament as the friar in Much Ado About Nothing, he tries a similar plan for Juliet except for that he is trying to fool everyone but Romeo. This way Paris will think that Juliet is dead and will give up trying to marry her. Again, in Romeo and Juliet people are given no choice in the manipulation of their love. Again the plan fails. In both plays the lovers have to ask their parents if their love is permissible, to do this they have to manipulate their love to seem acceptable. Claudio asks Leonato politely and in the traditional fashion if he could marry his daughter Hero. Leonato accepts and is overjoyed to marry his daughter to such a man. While on the other hand, Romeo and Juliet decide to skimp on the courting process and get married right away. Their marriage ended in tragedy. It seems as though the brute force strategy of love manipulation does not work nearly as well as slowly convincing people that it is for the greater good. Another example of how love in Romeo and Juliet is fast paced and reckless. Not just the little aspects of love in the books are different, entire love stories are also perfect examples of the difference between the two books.

The love stories of Benedick and Beatrice and Romeo and Juliet are radically different. Benedick and Beatrice are tricked from hating each other into loving each other. It is the same case for Romeo and Juliet; their families hate each other also. But there are many differences between the two couples. First of all Beatrice and Benedick have a bona fide love between them, they even write love poems to each other as proof of their love at the end of the play. Benedick and Beatrice must be coaxed out of their hate for each other in order for them to love each other. But after this process they actually love each other instead of hate. Benedick carries out his love for Beatrice in a traditional way. Benedick asks Leonato, Beatrice's uncle for Beatrice's hand in marriage and the friar to help him “But for my will, my will is your goodwill / May stand with ours, this day to be conjoined / in the state of honorable marriage- / in which, good Friar, I shall desire your help.” (Shakespeare 222). But Romeo and Juliet just have the power of lust on their side. Friar exemplifies this by saying “Young men's love then lies / not truly in their hearts, but in their eyes” (Shakespeare 89). WhenRomeo sees Juliet, he totally forgets his hate for her family in his lust, and the same goes for Juliet. Romeo and Juliet clearly rush through things a little too fast and should have been more careful, considering how their marriage ended up. Finally the end of their love journey is also radically different. Beatrice and Benedick have a happy ending and live put their lives as a happy couple. They took their time and made sure that they had done everything right before they tied the not. But yet again, Romeo and Juliet rust through the dating, the proposal, and the marriage, and look how they ended up. Rushing through a love affair will clearly end up in disaster, as Romeo and Juliet's example shows. They should have been more like Beatrice and Benedick.

Romeo and Juliet is a book of two teenagers who, in their lust, rush through an affair, marrying each other within only days of meeting each other. Their love ends in their tragic deaths. But Much Ado About Nothing is about two couples who take their time and take their love on the traditional path. Their love ends in happiness. Shakespeare's plays Romeo and Juliet takes a much more radical and rushed than in Much Ado About Nothing. This is shown by when Romeo and Juliet Experience love at first sight they automatically start kissing. But Claudio and Hero also experience love at first sight but they take their time and don't even talk to each other until that night. Also, in Romeo and Juliet many people try to manipulate love through brute force, giving people no decision in the matter, all attempts ended in disaster. But in Much Ado About Nothing the attempts to manipulate love included presenting a situation and the people making up their own minds about their love. These ended in success. And finally, throughout the whole love story of Romeo and Juliet, the rush, but Benedick and Beatrice take their time. Again the slow and steady approach is successful. Rushing always leads to disaster, therefore, slow and steady wins the race.

What most separates theatre from film is its inherent liveliness. Its individuality is found in the fact that each performance is unique and has a character all of its own. It is this energy that makes theatre a living, breathing entity rather than a stale museum piece kept around purely for its historical merits. Audiences are usually interested in watching performances that move them emotionally, have believable characters that they can relate to, and have a satisfying storyline that allows them to fully connect with the actors involved in performing.

Theatre can often resemble a mirror - it can take a part of society, whether large or small, and use the stage to recreate the world necessary to reflect that aspect of life back to the audience. People see themselves in theatre; they find solace in the fact that they are not alone when they see their problems and joys brought to life by others.. They find catharsis in the soul-searching, cleansing tragedies, and take hope from the comedies. It is when a script is taken absolutely literally, with no interpretive action used to connect with the audience, that theatre becomes “what Peter Brook ruefully calls "deadly” Shakespeare” (Bulman: 5). Film and video add to this cut-and-dry interpretations of Shakespeare. By having a performance constantly be available on command, it has become far too easy to simply rely on the interpretations created in past performances rather than initiate new ones. “Our challenge, therefore, is to discover how not to replace the old textuality with a new form of performance textuality, which may be "read'… according to the interpretive protocols of close reading and with similar assumptions about textual monumentality.” (Bulman: 2) Modern day directors must find their creative spirit, and use the old words to bring the new meaning to life, rather than simply rely on what those particular words might have meant to audiences of the past, who, like the old meanings, are all now dead and gone.

Shakespeare, more so than most other playwrights, had a knack for using words which have not only the surface meaning of the word, but also had several underlying meanings. Shakespeare gives no indication as to which meaning should be implied by the actor, which leaves the director to choose which direction he wants the story to go in. These directorial decisions shape the meaning-experience behind both the script and the eventual performance, and change the reactions in the audience accordingly.

One of the wonderful things about live theatre is that it can be adapted to suit the cultural ideals of its audience. Different cultures place significance on different aspects of life, and theatre is one of few art forms that can be cultivated to display different meanings that explore each unique culture's societal rules. For example, at the time when Taming of the Shrew was written, the audience was probably well satisfied with the end and happy that Katherine had finally met a man who was able to tame her and turn her from the shrewish girl into the demure woman. However, it is not hard to imagine the reaction that that play would receive were it to be performed at a feminist convention in modern day society. A director would have to severely twist the meaning behind the play, or respond with a counter-text, in order to not be in danger of having his play be a dismal failure. The ending would have to be used to inspire vigour and determination in the feminist audience to fight against the unfair domination of men. “Stage history… has attached itself to new forms of theoretical discourse and as a result has tended to view productions through a literary lens - feminist, psychoanalytic, cultural materialist…” (Bulman: 3) Similarly, theatre can be used to show changes in times, to emphasise changing gender roles and to demonstrate the effect that this can have on the audience in any given society. “Juliet Dusinberre explores how performances of Antony and Cleopatra since Victorian times have inscribed cultural attitudes towards women in power, and how male reviewers have focused inquiry on the actress playing Cleopatra as "the principal signifier of the anxieties and obsessions, pleasurable and less pleasurable, which dominate the audience who watches her". (Bulman: 3)

In theatre, as with any art form involving people, there is also a very large focus on the individual physiques of the actors. As each actor's body is unique, so is their performance, as every aspect allows for a different theatrical possibility. An actor who is especially grounded in his or her body can allow their body to speak louder than the words he or she is speaking, and use the body to either complement or belie the face value meaning in the text. “… Theorists fail to consider the affective power of the body, its present bodiliness, its capacity to arouse an audience's passions - the physical and emotive force of acting that resists inscription - which is part of the pleasure we derive from live performance.” (Bulman: 4) This has been true ever since the beginnings of the theatre. In Restorative dramas, women often played a “breeches role” where their bodies would be shown off in tight-fitting breeches as they donned male apparel to show off their svelte figures in order to inspire the lust of the men in the crowd. This is no less true today - the body, more so than any other aspect of performance, can be used to seduce, convince, connive, repulse, or connect. A particular choice in an actor's age, gender or race can also be a central part of manipulating a script to bring forward any underlying meanings that the director wishes to push to the forefront. “… An audience's experience of that body on the stage confounds critical claims about the actor's power of cultural signification.” (Bulman: 4)

The theatre is a living art form. It is characterised by a live energy - a uniqueness - in every performance, and the power to fully connect to the viewer in a way that no other art form can fully manage. It cannot be analysed under the same harsh, bright lights as poetry or prose. Nothing is black or white in the theatre; it is all simply many shades of grey. Scripts cannot be torn apart by literary critics, because they are not there to be interpreted as literary devices. They are meant for performance, and in that performance to see how many ways theatre can explore humanity. Theatre is about bridging connections between the stage and the audience, and that's what Shakespeare did best.

Hamlet is usually seen as a philosophical character. He is always spilling out ideas throughout his soliloquies that can be classified as existentialist or skeptical at best. One of the classic examples in of his relativist ideas is seen in the quote “There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so” (Weller, Hamlet, Act II, scene II). What makes the skeptics and the scholars equally passionate is his view towards death and its evolution.

In the beginning of the play, we can see his outright obsession with death. Despite the fact that even his friends were afraid of the ghost, Hamlet decides to speak to the ghost and then follows the ghost when it beckons to him. The only line that even hinted to his hesitation to follow the ghost is seen when he says “Angels and ministers of grace defend us” (Weller, Hamlet, Act I, Scene 1V). But even that cannot be seen as a sign of being afraid since Hamlet fearlessly talked to the ghost and then followed it - something no man would do in his right mind. This is just a sign of what is troubling his thoughts, as Marcellus said in Act I, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”

Then later when he organizes the play to expose his uncle's guilt and then receives the proof he needed, we see a Hamlet deeply troubled. Thus begins his contemplation of suicide when he realizes the magnitude of his troubles. To be or not to be soliloquy deals with this contemplation of suicide. Hamlet is asking which is more preferable, to suffer in one's own mind or take a stand against a sea of troubles. He realizes that the situation he is in now is forcing his hand to act - he either must remain quiet or forget all that happened and thus suffer or must work to expose and kill his uncle.

Hamlet's dilemma is the pain of life that he must endure or the uncertainty of death. We see that Hamlet is dissatisfied with life and lists many things that trouble him but he is not sure what death will bring him. He is thinking that the experience of death itself maybe worse than life itself. Hamlet knows that the church explicitly forbids suicide because then your soul will be in eternal damnation. Thus the famous quote from the bible, “the wages of sin is death.” For Hamlet, death is an undiscovered country where no traveler returns. It is a one way ticket where there are no take-backs - a possibility that life might be bad but death could be worse.

Hamlet's mind begins to unravel further as he tries to comprehend death. In Act IV, Scene III, we see a hamlet that is mentally disturbed. When asked of death, he explains it in the most crude and unfashionable way. He says that we are all destined for death, to be eaten by maggots. Your worm is the only emperor of your diet. Meaning you are eating someone else's death body because the worms broke down that dead body and how you will just fatten yourself up for the worms. This shows a completion alienation of Hamlet from his earlier self, a new stage in his personal development or rather his devolution. He is talking of death itself as nothing to be too mindful of, a natural process that he describes in the most dehumanizing way. When his friends Guildenstern and Rosencrantz were killed, there was no mourning for them from Hamlet - just that they were simply getting in his way (Weller, Act V, Scene II). A dehumanizing and numbing effect that has enveloped Hamlet's sensitiveness, a sign for his passionate madness. This is shown when Hamlet did not kill his uncle Claudius while in confession because he wanted to not only kill the man but to “damn his soul as well” (Detmold, pg. 127).

Later in Act V, we see a completely transformed Hamlet who is hardened about his feelings and who has made peace with the universe. In Act V, Scene II, Hamlet says “If it be not now, yet it will come. The readiness is all.” He is talking about his death, that he has accepted his fate. His reasoning is that death will come to everyone; it is just a matter of being ready for it. If it is indeed his destiny to die in a duel with Laertes, then so be it. Here we see a Hamlet that is beyond contemplation of his death or the afterlife. We see someone who simply accepted the reality has it is and is now moving on with his plans for revenge. His fear is death is no longer a obstacle because he has already taken many lives and he has made the reasoning that no matter what exists in the afterlife, he will continue to exist. We see a man who has completely come to terms with his own mortality and has surrendered his life to where fate or death takes him.

To be or not to be soliloquy of Hamlet is just a small marker in the long road of his devolution into madness and a dehumanized soul. His obsessions and contemplation of death leads to his resigning himself to his fate, whatever that may be. Throughout the play, his questioning mentality about the nature of death gets changed to a point where at the end; he simply has no more objections to the very notion of death itself. Even when his friend Horatio tries to tell him of the dangers to his life, Hamlet is unconcerned. However, if we can speculate, we can be sure that the Hamlet from Scene I would have certainly objected to what Hamlet from Scene V has done. This shows the breakdown of rationality and a man who has come to terms with life, the universe and his own mortality.

 

Critics have suggested many possibilities of Hamlet's tragic flaw, but since the character of Hamlet is one of the most complex in all of literature, there is no consensus. One critic, Ernest Jones, wrote that Hamlet's tragic flaw is that he has an "Oedipus Complex," meaning that Hamlet, like Oedipus, has the desire to kill his father so that he can be his mother's only object of affection. Jones supports this theory by pointing out that Hamlet is constantly fighting with Claudius for his mother's love, and that he is very upset by Gertrude's sleeping with Claudius (Jones 129). This theory, however, is unpersuasive. Hamlet wants to kill Claudius not because he is sleeping with Hamlet's mother, but because he killed Hamlet's father.

Other critics identify Hamlet's fatal flaw as "thinking too well," that is, having looked truly into the essence of things, (Bloom 393, quoting Nietzche), or feeling too much. T.S. Eliot wrote about the latter in relation to Hamlet's exaggerated feelings of disgust towards his mother, which Eliot thought were out of proportion to the situation. Eliot believed that Hamlet never understood those feelings and therefore allowed them to poison his life and obstruct his action (Eliot 90). This is also unpersuasive, because although Hamlet's feelings towards his mother are important, they are not the most important in Hamlet. More important are Hamlet's feelings towards Ophelia or Claudius, for example, because his relationships with these characters are integral to the action and outcome of this play.

The writer Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe viewed Hamlet not as having a tragic flaw, but as being unfit for the responsibilities heaped upon him by Shakespeare. In Goethe's words, the duty to avenge was, "laid upon a soul unfit for the performance of it" (Goethe 43). To him, Hamlet lacked "the strength of nerve which forms a hero," (Goethe 44) and sank beneath his burdens. Although an interesting and insightful analysis, this is not exactly what Shakespeare meant. Shakespeare crafted Hamlet so as to show periodically that there is no inherent flaw in Hamlet's character (Hammersmith 249). Rather, that Hamlet was a normal person, who because of the many traumatic events that happened to him, became overwhelmed.

The first of these catastrophic events is the death of King Hamlet. Hamlet, as would almost any normal person, is devastated by the death of his father. While he is still mourning his father's recent death, to make matters worse, his mother marries Hamlet's uncle, Claudius. This marriage takes place within months of his fathers' death, and because of its hastiness Hamlet questions it, and believes that his mother may have planned this marriage before his father's actual death. Next, his new step-father does nothing to make Hamlet's life, which at this point is sad and depressing, any easier. When Hamlet asks Claudius if he can return to the University, Claudius tells him he may not. Polonius then decides that his daughter, Ophelia, should stop seeing Hamlet. This is also crushing news to Hamlet; he is not allowed to see the girl he loves.

Finally, Hamlet meets his father's ghost and learns that his father was killed by Claudius, and that his father wants Hamlet to avenge his death. This is the pinnacle of Hamlet's depression, learning that his father was murdered, and that this murder was committed by his new step-father. These terrible events, occurring one after the other, send Hamlet into an abnormal state, where he becomes suicidal and does things he normally would not do.

In the midst of these depressing events, Shakespeare shows the reader flashes of a normal Hamlet. The first glimpse the reader sees of Hamlet's normal self is when Hamlet is visited by his school friends in Act I, Scene ii, as follows:

HORATIO: Hail to your lordship!
HAMLET: I am glad to see you well. Horatio--or I do forget myself!
HORATIO: The same, my lord, and your poor servant ever.
HAMLET: Sir, my good friend. I'll change that name with you. And what make you from Wittenberg, Horatio? --Marcellus?
MARCELLUS: My good lord.
HAMLET: I am very glad to see you. [To Bernardo] Good even, sir. -- But what, in faith, make you from Wittenberg?
HORATIO: A truant disposition, good my lord.
HAMLET: I would not hear your enemy say so, nor shall you do mine ear that violence to make it truster of your own report against yourself. I know you are no truant. But what is your affair in Elsinore? We'll teach you to drink {deep} ere you depart.
HORATIO: My lord, I came to see your father's funeral.
HAMLET: I prithee, do not mock me, fellow-student. I think it was to {see} my mother's wedding.
HORATIO: Indeed, my lord, it follow'd hard upon.
HAMLET: Thrift, thrift, Horatio. The funeral baked meats
did coldly furnish forth the marriage tables. Would I had met my dearest foe in heaven or ever I had seen that day, Horatio! (Ham. I. ii.165-190)

In this dialogue, Hamlet is fooling around and having fun speaking with his college friends, whom he will not be allowed to see in the future because of Claudius' decision to prohibit him from returning to Wittenberg. As Oscar James Campbell described in his essay entitled "What is the Matter with Hamlet?", when Hamlet is with his friends in this scene, his "natural charm and graciousness shine forth," (Campbell 104) once again, as it did in his untroubled past. His light-hearted demeanor is in stark contrast to the depressed behavior he exhibits before his friends enter the scene, and shows the reader the normal Hamlet.

Shakespeare provides the reader with another example of the normal Hamlet when Hamlet and Horatio meet before the play in Act III, Scene ii:

HAMLET: What ho, Horatio!
Enter HORATIO
HORATIO: Here, sweet lord, at your service.
HAMLET: Horatio, thou art e'en as just a man as e'er my conversation coped withal.
HORATIO: O, my dear lord-
HAMLET: Nay, do not think I flatter, for what advancement may I hope from thee that no revenue hast but thy good spirits to feed and clothe thee? Why should the poor be flattered? No, let the candied tongue lick absurd pomp and crook the pregnant hinges of the knee where thrift may follow fawning. Dost thou hear? Since my dear soul was mistress of her choice and could of men distinguish, her election hath seal'd thee for herself for thou hast been as one, in suffering all, that suffers nothing, a man that Fortune's buffets and rewards hast ta'en with equal thanks; and blest are those whose blood and judgment are so well commeddled, that they are not a pipe for Fortune's finger to sound what stop she please. Give me that man that is not passion's slave, and I will wear him in my heart's core, ay, in my heart of heart, as I do thee. (Ham. III. ii.54-79)

In this passage, Hamlet playfully flatters Horatio, and Horatio pretends to act bashful. Hamlet also tells Horatio what a valuable friend he is, and compliments his steady character. The ease with which they speak to each other and their openness both signify a long-standing relationship which reminds the reader what Hamlet was like before the onset of his depression.

Hamlet's high spirits continue after the play ends, when he and Horatio again joke back and forth noting Hamlet's "excellent" acting ability and rejoice at the play's success:

HAMLET: Would not this, sir, and a forest of feathers (if the rest of my fortunes turn Turk with me) with {two} Provincial roses on my razed shoes, get me a fellowship in a cry of players?
HORATIO: Half a share.
HAMLET: A whole one, I. For thou dost know, O Damon dear, this realm dismantled was of Jove himself, and now reigns here a very very-- pajock.
HORATIO: You might have rhymed.
HAMLET: O good Horatio, I'll take the ghost's word for a thousand pound. Didst perceive?
HORATIO: Very well, my lord.
HAMLET: Upon the talk of the poisoning?
HORATIO: I did very well note him.
HAMLET: Ah ha! Come, some music! Come, the recorders! For if the king like not the comedy, why, then, belike, he likes it not, perdy. Come, some music! (Ham. III.ii.301-321)

This scene is another good example of Hamlet's normality. According to Campbell, "many cultivated gentlemen of the Renaissance," enjoyed the theatre (Campbell 104). Hamlet, a man of the Renaissance, enjoyed the play for its theatrical qualities, but also enjoyed watching Claudius' discomfort. In both respects, Shakespeare shows he is perfectly normal.

In addition to periodically depicting Hamlet as a playful and humorous young man, who acts gracious and charming with his friends, and who enjoys plays just like other Renaissance men, Shakespeare uses another mechanism to show the reader that Hamlet is normal and does not have a tragic flaw. Shakespeare creates Horatio as a mirror image of Hamlet, except with less prominence (Hammersmith 249-250). Horatio is supposed to be exactly what Hamlet would be like had he not experienced the chain of catastrophic events that sent him into a depression. The two characters' parallels are many: both studied at Wittenberg, both are "scholars of contemplative nature," and neither is a man of action.

No one, however, would call Horatio "flawed" or "defective" simply because he is not, say, a soldier of Macbeth's stamp - he is not, as it happens, particularly a man of action at all. Horatio thinks a lot. He performs no action in the play which would lead an audience to regard his character as in any way superior to Hamlet's "too contemplative" nature. (Hammersmith 249)

Because the two characters are so alike, they are distinguished by their circumstances. Nothing traumatic happens to Horatio, but everything happens to Hamlet. He is unfortunately saddled with the burden of avenging his father's death, a circumstance which, according to Hammersmith, calls for a predisposition to action, a character trait Hamlet does not possess. As Hamlet himself says, "The time is out of joint. O cursed spite that ever I was born to set it right!" (Ham. I. v. 210-211) Horatio, on the other hand, is never called upon to take any action, let alone an action contrary to his predisposition. His contemplative nature, therefore, never presents a problem. If the same events happened to Horatio, he probably would have had the same response as Hamlet, and been a victim of circumstances, like Hamlet.

"Hamlet is a tragedy, the tragedy of a genius caught fast in the toils of circumstance and unable to fling free. Shakespeare unfolds to us the full horror of Hamlet's situation gradually, adding one load after another to the burden he has to bear until we feel that he must sink beneath it" (Wilson 39). And sink beneath it he does through no fault of his own. Hamlet is just an average man, to whom many bad things unfortunately happened.

Tragedy in theater began in the 500's B.C. Aristotle, the accepted authority on the definitions of theater genres, defined tragedy as being serious and dignified. He also stated that, in a tragedy, the protagonist is a great, idealized, heroic character who experiences a ruinous change in fortune. The reversal of fortune can be caused by many different things, but is usually caused by a mistake or by a character flaw such as pride or greed. Often, this mistake or character flaw (or mistake caused by a character flaw) leads to a chain of unfortunate events that leads to the character's downfall. This downfall is usually death-not only the main character's death, but the deaths of all of those whom he loves, and often all of those whom he hates as well. It is ironic that, in tragedy, there is hope until the very last moment-sometimes even beyond the last moment-that the hero will prevail. Of course, he never does.

Take, for example, Macbeth. Macbeth, a successful war general, becomes thane of Cawdor-a position of Scottish Nobility. A group of witches prophesied that he would become King of Scotland. Giving in to his wife's urgings (and to his own pride) he kills King Duncan and assumes kingship. Macbeth, the heroic character, starts out above the common man and rises still higher-he has wealth, and he is king of a nation. Soon, however, the ghost of a man he killed appears to Macbeth, and he teeters on the brink of insanity. He has the family of Macduff, the only person Macbeth thinks can oppose him, killed. Macduff, in response, helps to raise an army to defeat Macbeth and bring his tyrannical, unstable rule to an end. In the end, Macduff personally slays Macbeth in battle by removing his head. Macbeth's early rise to kingship is crushed by a mistake-killing the family of Macduff. Thus, a character who started out far above the common man-a hero, an idealization of a man-falls all the way to death. As such, the story of Macbeth is a tragedy.

While Macbeth, a tragic protagonist, was a noble hero, the protagonist of a comic work is an ordinary, often likable, man. Comedy, which began about half a century later than tragedy, is typically more lighted-hearted than tragedy, though this is not always the case. Comedies show the inherent weakness of man-and man overcoming this weakness. Family tensions, social tensions, and mistaken identity are oft-used themes in comedy. Comic protagonists possess many small weaknesses that often land them in trouble, but most characters achieve happiness of some form by the end of the story. The plotline of a comedy is often far more complex than that of a tragedy-there are many, many small plots woven in among the main plotline. With every new plot comes at least one new character, resulting in a tangled web of characters and stories. This web often ends in marriage or in some other happy outcome for one or more of the characters.

The Merchant of Venice is one of Shakespeare's most famous comedies. It is, in the way of comedy, filled with an intricate web of plots. One of the major plots focuses on Bassanio, an ordinary person who is deeply indebted to many people. He wishes to marry a young, rich, beautiful woman named Portia, but he needs money for gifts and transportation to her abode on the island of Belmont. He goes to his best friend, the almost-fatherly figure Antonio, for a loan. Unfortunately, all of Antonio's money is tied up overseas. So Antonio goes to Shylock, a Jew, for a loan. He gets the loan for Bassanio, and, after a minor test (on which he was assisted by Portia) Bassanio and Portia are betrothed and Bassanio's servant, Gratiano, is betrothed to Portia's servant, Narissa. Antonio, after a series of unfortunate events that nearly leads to his death, forgives all of Bassanio's debts to him, and Bassanio can use Portia's money to pay off the rest of his debts. Bassanio, who begins in debt, ends in prosperity, thus the story is a comedy.

But Bassanio's is not the only story in the Merchant of Venice-the story of Shylock is far more tragic. In a paradoxical way, comedy relies on tragedy; in both comedy and tragedy, the best laid plans always go awry. Tragic and comic characters undergo many trials. Bad things happen, people die, love is lost, and fortunes disappear. Both are filled with deception, prejudice, alienation, and rejection-but in a tragedy, the hero eventually succumbs to these adversities, while in comedy, the hero manages to rise above these things and to become a better person as a result. Shylock faces the unfair prejudices of most Venetians, as he is a Jewish money lender. He is very wealthy and successful, despite this prejudice. By the end of the story, however, he has lost his wealth, his daughter, and his religion-he was forced to convert to Christianity. His decidedly tragic story is an integral part of the Merchant of Venice-a comedy-proving that tragedy is an essential part of comedy.

Shakespeare was a brilliant writer who understood both comedy and tragedy very well. He understood that one could truly not exist without the other. Tragedy-the fall of a hero to some unfortunate demise-and comedy-the rise of an ordinary person from poor circumstances to happiness-are integral parts of each other. Tragedy can have some lighthearted moments, while comedy does not need to elicit a single laugh. Shylock is a vital part of the Merchant of Venice, but one would be hard-pressed to laugh at the things he endures in the story.

The most obvious example of a play for all seasons is Henry V. During World War II, Laurence Olivier's Henry was a rallying call to a world exhausted by years of conflict. The blood and guts was glossed over; what was emphasised was the righteousness of Henry's (and the Allies) cause. The French were shown as cowardly, while the King was convinced of the justice of his actions. The 15th century victor of Agincourt suddenly becomes Winston Churchill in the imagination of the audience. The showdown is between Henry and the Dauphin, but it could as easily have been Churchill and Hitler.

Fast forward to the Falklands War of 1982, and the Royal Shakespeare Company performance of Henry V starring Kenneth Branagh. Branagh was to make a film of the play, which the critics dubbed 'Dirty Harry' due to the muddy, bloody battle scenes. Here, there is no glorification of war, and Branagh's Henry is more unsure of his position. He is 'one of the boys,' reflecting the cultural change since the 1940's. Our heroes these days are ordinary men; we don't put them on pedestals any longer.

The casualty rate during the Falklands War was light in comparison to World War II, but attitudes have changed. The losses were seen as real personal tragedies, rather than an accepted consequence of war. This is encapsulated in the moving scene where Henry carries a dead boy the length of the battlefield, sparing us none of the grisly scenes on the way. We're more concerned about the human cost of conflict these days than the principles we're fighting for.

In 2003, just after the start of the Iraq war, the National Theatre staged another production of Henry V. The play is in modern dress, with black actor Adrian Lester playing Henry and a female chorus in Penny Downie, highlighting the multiculturalism and important role of women in the twenty-first century. The Archbishop of Canterbury has prepared dossiers to support Henry's claim to the French throne, echoing the so-called 'dodgy dossiers' concerning Sadam Hussein's weapons.

Again, there is the message that war is not glamorous, it is ugly and tiresome. The soldiers are reluctant recruits.

Henry only invokes God when it suits him, which reflects the increasing secularity of the present day. And the war is reported by TV journalists. As critic Michael Billington said at the time, 'This is a Henry V for our age.'

When one remembers that Shakespeare's history plays were, among other things, a reflection on the Wars of the Roses and the theme of kingship, it is remarkable that, almost half a millennium later, Henry V can be accurately described as 'for our age.' Shakespeare's writing and wisdom is timeless. His work will still be relevant five hundred years hence.

At the start of the play, Hamlet is not a commanding figure. As a matter of fact, he is depicted as weak and vacillating. This may not be the best description of the leading character but Hamlet does appear to be confused at the start of the play.

Hamlet is a loner, bitter, and distrustful. He hates his uncle because he is aware of what his uncle did to his father. He dislikes his mother intensely because of her decision to marry his uncle right after his father passed away. Hamlet is actually an introspective young man who studied at the University of Wittenberg. He is indecisive and hesitant but sometimes can be impulsive in his decisions too.

His confusion becomes truly apparent when his father's ghost appeared before him to tell him that Claudius poisoned him. Hamlet was at first passive after being told of the truth of the death by the ghost of his father.

Hamlet is very mysterious person. It is hard to fathom his character. You cam sense as you read the play that there is more to Hamlet that what meets the eye. This mystery is evident in the way he speaks. The reader always has a nagging feeling that he is implying something more than what he is actually saying. It could be that Hamlet, himself, is not aware of what he is doing but he comes across as such.

At the start of the play, we come to know that Hamlet's stint at the University of Wittenberg is rudely interrupted by the painful news that his father passed away. This sudden turn of events could have turned Hamlet into the introspective and philosophical person that he is. He often ponders on complicated questions that do not lead to certain answers.

Hamlet's strength of character is put to test when he learns that his uncle murdered his father. Hamlet, instead of acting on what he knew for certain, spends his time laboring on how to prove that his uncle is guilty before taking actions. The knowledge of the tyranny done to his father further fuels Hamlet's quest for more introspection on the basic questions of life such as if there is truly an afterlife, if suicide is permissible, so on and so forth.

The most tangible step taken by Hamlet is to pretend to be a madman. This situation offers us a better glimpse of the man. Hamlet is a cautious young man who is reluctant to get into trouble. This is probably the first idea we can form of his character. But as the story progresses, we get to know another side of Hamlet's character. That is, he can be an impulsive, irrational man too.

The irony of Hamlet is he spends a lot of time thinking over what course of action to take yet he is capable of acting impulsively at times. When he finally acts, he is fast and does not think much of his actions. This argument is best exemplified at the time when he stabs someone behind the curtain without even taking the time to know who the person is. It turns out to be Polonius, the father of his intended Ophelia. His impulsiveness leads to the death of an innocent man. He is like a madman, sometimes irrational and wild in his speech and actions causing distress to other characters.

Hamlet does not only ponder his inner sentiments, he is also concerned with the state of Denmark and his family. His discontent goes beyond self-reproach. It is directed to the world, in general. He particularly dislikes his mother for marrying his uncle sooner than expected. He also turns down Ophelia, his love interest. He seems to distrust women in general. He is also constantly contemplating death even suicide and its consequences.

Hamlet's weakness in character becomes very apparent in the scene where he quoted the most famous line in the English language in Act III, scene i (58) “To be or not to be.” In this scene, Hamlet was contemplating suicide and was weighing the consequences of his action.

He ponders “which is nobler? To suffer life, “[t]he slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,” or to seek to end it? As Hamlet ponders on this question, he realized that it leads to more questions rather than answers. Hamlet restated his question by adding dreaming to sleep. He says that the dreams that may come in the sleep of death could be intimidating so much so that they “must give us pause.” To state it simply, Hamlet contemplates that the bigger question in suicide is what will happen to him in the afterlife if he chooses to commit suicide?

He answers his own question by saying that no one is wants to live except that “the dread of something after death” forces people to accept suffering rather than end their lives and find out later that they are in an even more desperate situation. Hamlet believes that the uncertainties of the afterlife caused extreme moral concerns that stop one from action: “conscience does make cowards of us all . . . thus the native hue of resolution / Is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought.”

This scene is important because it reveals the quality of Hamlet's mind. He is deeply passionate by nature. He could be impulsive, rash and thoughtless but at times could be logical, wise, reasonable and noble. Hamlet is like a clash of the new world and the old world. He tried to end his inner struggles by turning to religion to seek valid reasons to either commit suicide or find the strength to kill Claudius. When religion does not suffices, he uses philosophy by asking the immortal line “to be or not to be” to be able to come up with the right answer but still find the reasons insufficient.

The scene emphasizes the clash of ideals Hamlet holds and the harsh realities he faces. It is the old versus new values or faith versus doubt. These words emphasized Hamlet's inner struggle to cope with two opposing forces which are preserving moral integrity and the need to avenge his father's murder.

The old or conservative values are represented by Hamlet's bid to retain moral integrity, clear conscience, spiritual faith, wisdom, justice, nobility and rationality and will. The new or modern values are exemplified by apathy, cynicism, imprudence, disbelief, recklessness, vengeance and impulsiveness.

Another weakness that Hamlet exhibits is he seems totally self-absorbed to the point that he does not see the threats that plaque Denmark's security and stability both from within and without. His focus on his woes seems to distract him from all other considerations outside his personal needs such as his duty as the future king of Denmark.

Ernest Johnson once said, “the dilemma of Hamlet the Prince and Man” is “to disentangle himself from the temptation to wreak justice for the wrong reasons and in evil passion, and to do what he must do at last for the pure sake of justice.… From that dilemma of wrong feelings and right actions, he ultimately emerges, solving the problem by attaining a proper state of mind.”

The universal appeal of Hamlet is based largely on the fact that we can all empathize with his struggles and ideals. Each of us, at one point or another, has to face the dilemma of making a crucial choice between two conflicting needs. Hamlet's dilemma on how to deal a corrupt world at the same time preserving his moral integrity is a classic example of the choices every human being has to make. His conflicting thoughts, agitated reactions and unstable character may make him weak but at the same time perfectly human.

These women are very different from each other, although what they wish to obtain approximately similar things. In both plays, several women wish to acquire and secure the love of the person, whom they love, which is common for many characters in plays, not simply in Shakespearian plays. In the play A Midsummer Night's Dream, both Helena and Hermia are the female characters in this play, who are desperately trying to get the attention of the man that they love. Though, it happens at different time.

The way that both women try to get the attention from the man they love in an almost girlish and childish way. The first event involves Helena. It is when Helena is told of Hermia and Lysander's plan and chooses to tell Demetrius about it, in order to get him closer and follow him, in Act 1, scene 1. The way she talking about trapping him seems to be the type of thing that we might do as youths.

A second event involves more Hermia than Helena. This happens just after Puck mistakenly puts the juice on Lysander and Demetrius's eyes and these two men have fallen for Helena, in Act Three, Scene Two. Hermia becomes confused when Lysander is pushing her away. After trying to talk to Lysander and try to reason with him, the only defense that she can think of is attacking Helena. Some of the things that are said, not simply by Hermia, but all four of them, are very childish. "Dwarf," "juggler," and "cankerblossom" are a few examples of what they call each other.

In 12th Night, the female characters choose an extremely different way to get the attention of the one they love. There are two ways that this seems to be done, in this mature play. First, there is Viola, who is in love with Orsino. Viola chooses not to say anything, for more than one reason. She doesn't say anything, because she believes Orsino is in love with Olivia, and because he thinks that Viola is a man. It is true she could always reveal herself, but it wouldn't help her or serve her purpose, in any positive way. Instead of saying anything about her love for him, Viola simply keeps it to herself and decides that it is perhaps best that way. She then continues to help Orsino in courting Olivia.

Then, there is Olivia, who is also trying to get the attention of the one she loves. Unlike Viola, she does try to suggest this fact, but in a very subtle way. The only problem is that she loves Cesario, who is really Viola. An example of suggesting her love is by sending Cesario the ring, which he is supposed to have left behind. However, he/she says that it's not his and picks up on the clue. Cesario/Viola realizes that Olivia loves him/her.

This shows a much clever side to the later female characters, within Shakespearian plays. Olivia and Viola are a lot more clever and logical. Hermia and Helena, on the other hand, are more childish. Perhaps the female characters evolved and became more mature as Shakespeare's career as a playwright became more mature.

There is that sense that they know how to deal with certain, if not all, aspects in their lives, with the female characters in 12th Night more than in A Midsummer Night's Dream. This idea may also be assumed with the way Hermia, Helena, Viola, and Olivia try to confess their love and/or get the attention of the man these women love. One may think that perhaps Shakespeare had in mind that Hermia and Helena were more like female teenagers, and Viola and Olivia were more adults-like women.

Then, there is the choice of words and actions; the words and actions that Shakespeare chooses to give them. This aspect goes almost hand in hand with their decision and intelligence. These aspects of their character affect their choice of words. In Midsummer Night's Dream, Hermia and Helena don't seem to think too much about they are saying. They simply say it without really thinking about the consequences, or it would seem and appear to be the case.

For instance, when Helena is plotting to tell Demetrius of Hermia and Lysander's plans and to then follow him, there is that sense that she is primarily thinking of what she wants and not of what Demetrius, Hermia, and Lysander may feel or how they may be affected by this action. She only seems to want the attention, and perhaps even the love of Demetrius. As opposed to thinking of anoter option, she simply goes for this idea, this girlish idea, almost.

This aspect in 12th Night is a different matter. The women in this play seem to think a lot more about what they say and about their choice of words and actions. A good example is when Viola is with Olivia, in Act Three, Scene One. This scene is just after Viola receives the ring from Olivia, which is supposed to be hers. Olivia is subtly talking about her love. Viola is trying to say that she can't love her, in a way that won't hurt Olivia. There is a sense in this scene that she chooses her words very carefully and she takes the time to think about what she is about to say. Viola really doesn't want to offend or hurt Olivia, in anyway.

In this situation, Olivia is trying to get Cesario to love her, but she isn't trying to push him as much as Helena is, when she is following Demetrius. Olivia is in between these two women, but her actions and intentions seem to be closer to Viola's actions and intensions. There is more complexity in Viola and Olivia's purpose than for Helena and Hermia. There seems to be more actions with a specific intension and purpose with Viola and Olivia. In A Midsummer Night's Dream, Hermia and Helena want to be with the man that they love. This is want their purpose is, throughout the play. It is simple and clear, to the audience.

However, in 12th Night, Olivia and Viola have more than one purpose. There is more than one thing that they are trying to achieve. Trying to get the love from the one, whom they love, is only one of their purpose, one of the things they are trying to achieve. But whatever they are trying to achieve, there is some complexity in it. It isn't always plain and clear. There is always something more behind their actions and what they say. This aspect seems engage the audience more.

There seems to be an immense gap between the characteristics of these four Shakespearian female characters. When one looks closely enough, one may realize that there appears to be a gap between the women in A Midsummer Night's Dream and the women in 12th Night. It would make sense that this may be due to the talented boy actors, associated to the Chamberlain's Men.

However, what may also explain this aspect is that Shakespeare was now only writing for the Chamberlain's Men and knew well enough the actors, who were associated to this company. We might never discover the exact reason for this aspect. In the mean time, we can keep enjoying a good performance of his plays.

Now most stories, of any genre, have a good side and a bad side: light and dark, good and evil. Its enviable not to. In Hamlet the use of good and evil, AKA light vs. dark, is very easy to see. We have Hamlet against Claudius, Hamlet against Laertes, and for a little while we have Hamlet against Gertrude. In most of those cases Hamlet represents good or light imagery and Claudius, Laertes, and even Gertrude represent evil or dark imagery. However obvious these examples are Shakespeare goes deeper than that. The play of Hamlet asks the audience a lot of questions, some are easier and more apparent than others are. One of these questions would be “Is the ghost good or evil?” This is a tough one, Hamlet believes he is right in trying to kill Claudius, yet we don't know if the ghost is of good or evil origin. If the ghost really was evil then there is the possibility that Claudius is innocent, but if the ghost is really the ghost of king Hamlet senior than Hamlet is on the right side.

Another one of these questions would be “Is Laertes right in trying to kill Hamlet, does he have the right?” This question, though more apparent then others, is still a deep question. Polonius, Laertes' father, was obviously killed by Hamlet, yet we know it was an accident, and, as far as everyone else is concerned, Hamlet is mad. So does Laertes really have the right to try and kill Hamlet? In those times the answer would be yes. In the Elizabethan age, when Hamlet was written, a son had the right even the responsibility to kill his father's murderer. Laertes has the right to avenge his father's death, but I don't think that was Laertes' biggest reason. Though Hamlet isn't physically responsible for Ophelia's death he is partly to blame. Ophelia went mad not only because of her father's death, but because the man she loved was the one who killed him. This results in Ophelia's madness and her eventual suicide. So it is possible that Laertes blames Hamlet for her death. This reason is a better one for killing the prince of Denmark.

Shakespeare's use of dark and light imagery helps to shape the characters and the various plots of this play. Just as in real life Shakespeare decides each character's actions based on his own ambitions, reactions, thoughts, and plans. This causes a lot of good and evil sides to form. Thus it is correct to say Shakespeare uses light vs. dark imagery in Hamlet.