Before beginning a critical essay it is necessary to understand what it is that is to be criticised, what the play is trying to do. This is made problematic by disagreements over exactly what this thing called “literature” actually is and what it is that it could be said to be aiming to do.

Historically, there has not been a lot of weight given to the modern “art for arts sake” doctrine. In any case such an idea is not likely to aid an in depth analysis of the text since it approaches it from the angle of “the text just is”.

A literary movement called “Russian Formalism” produced some enduring ideas on what it is that the arts, including literature, are aiming to do. Viktor Shlovsky (1893-1984) hypothesised that there was a great deal of “habitualisation” in life. That is to say, man arrives at habits of perceiving the world around him; he thus perceives it almost automatically and does not appreciate it to its fullest extent. The aim of literature and all art, he thought, was that of “defamiliarisation”, to present what is understood and that which man has become “habitualised” to in such a way that it could be appreciated anew.

This lead the Formalists to the unfortunate conclusion that all literature could be scientifically dissected to reveal patterns, and thus enlighten critics as to how to produce particular “defamiliarising” effects. That is not to say that the form of a piece does not contribute somewhat to its effect. For example, all of Shakespeare’s tragedies are five acts long, and they mostly contain only one major character (the protagonist) whom the audience spends most time considering. There are also specific characteristics that define what merits a tragedy and what does not. All of the tragedies are a progression towards an end that seems inevitable; the downfall of the tragic hero is always caused by human action. The hero’s downfall can at all times be contributed in part to his own action. In short, if a character was to suffer at the hands of an improbability then the play would not be tragic; downfall must always be caused by human action.

This school of criticism is not unfortunate in the sense that it is wholly unhelpful but rather that it is too limiting, it leaves no room for in depth analysis of character. If there is one thing that is notable between Shakespearian plays it is that each explores a different theme. Since the demise of the protagonist, as a rule, occurs organically, inline with characteristics of characters, this requires different characters, with different values, behaving in ways different to previous plays. This dynamic limits the usefulness of analysing form and necessitates that character be examined too.

Having now a good understanding of the aims of literature and the importance of form and character various questions remain. Should the views of the author be taken into account? How should the texts of Shakespeare be studied within the context of the modern world? What should be said about how realistic a text is? How true or scientific can one be in literary theory? Now to answer those in turn…….

The legitimacy of incorporating the views of the author into criticism is dubious at best. By definition, Shakespearian tragedy contains multiple characters of opposing views. It would be difficult to be certain of Shakespeare’s moral view point by reading his plays, not least because even the hero is flawed and normally commits acts of grave abuse himself. What seems more likely is that Shakespeare was trying to draw the audience’s attention to particular problems, dilemmas or social contradictions; it is very difficult to make a case for any of his works being didactic in the slightest. Moreover, it is important to remember that one of the best definitions of what literature aims to do is “defamilarisation”, not necessarily to preach the authors views. He may have, for example, enjoyed writing contradictory to his own views, it is impossible to know. That said, if the text itself displays an obvious bias then it would be legitimate to say so, as long as such comments are not founded on any premise of assumed authorial stance.

Naturally when texts such as Shakespeare’s are examined within the context of the modern world a critic will approach the works with different questions than Shakespeare intended, or even imagined himself. Some very insightful and successful criticisms have arisen as a result of this. However, little notice should be taken of any Freudian “Psychoanalysis” of Shakespeare (e.g. Hamlet having the famous Oedipus Complex). The problem with such critisim, and indeed the whole of psychology, is that it has its baises in an abstract notion: “the mind”. This has questionable scientific value in the real world and none whatsoever when applied to text. This is because, especially in Hamlet’s case, it is essentially the anaylisis of an imaganary entity outside of the text. If the aim of this literature is to make anew what seems stale by representation in drama then the drama’s ability to do that should be anaylised. It is inexcusable and infuriating however, to treat these characters as real people, unbounded by the emotions and issues that Shakespeare intended to represent. To anaylise the text from a modern perspective may prove helpful but only when such critisim is conducted with evidence taken from the text and by treating the characters as encapsulated by the text, regardless of how unfinished that may result in them appearing in a modern world.

Criticisim of the reality of a text is a little less straightforward. As before, an undertstanding of the concept of “defamiliarisation” should be maintained. These works are intended to be unlike reality, so that they might represent it more powerfully to us. For example, no one lives any part of their life in five acts. So the practicalities, conventions and intentions of a Shakespearian work will always place resitrictions on the reality of a work. However, it does still need to effectively represent the world to us. If a central hero was to suffer terribly as the result of an improbability, instead of a situation manufactured organically by the mannerisms of characters, this would be contrary to the aims of the play. Such a play would seem less compelling, it would provide less of an insight into the human condition &c. So in cases where the artificailty of any part of the play noticably hinders its ability to communicate with the audience it might be called “unrealistic”. Naturally where this line is drawn will depend to some extent on the critic’s preferance and there is room for argumentation.

The persuit of truth through literary theory is difficuilt, owing to the inabilities of language and the ambiguities that are contained within it, not to mention those seeming contradictions that exist whithin a work of literature in its entirity. Indeed the branch of literary theory known as “postmodernism”, is born largely out of a claim that there has been a break down of what words are intended to mean and what they actually do, if , indeed, there was ever a connection (e.g. “Simulacra et Simulation” by the controversial Jean Baudrillard and his theory of “floating signifiers”).

Moreover, the word “theory” carries with it certain requirements. Perhaps most importantly is the requirement that a theory makes predictions that are falsifiable. This is relatively easily achieved in science but is a considerably harder requirement to meet when one is talking about characterisation. It was to avoid this problem that the Russian Formalists sought to find patterns in works, this did however, radically cripple their ability to evaluate characters.

Since it will never be possible to theorise in literature the same way that one can in science, a critic would likely be best served by making his works as accurate as possible. This would include making any theory produced malleable enough to deal with as many occurrences as feasible. As an example see the madness essay on Hamlet and King Lear and the criticisms there in of the inaccuracies in claiming that Hamlet was not mad. One cannot say that such an explanation of the play is less “true”, since no account can really be proved. But it would be best to say that the description of the play which leaves least ambiguities is the one which best explains how it achieves its effect. And that, after all, is the aim of criticism.