u/NoLandBeyond_adept

W diddy

edit: the extra 1 is intencional reflecting the re zero haters inability to count

a lot of writing debates become pointless because people confuse personal dislike with objective criticism.

like, when you day "X show is bad" you are talking about the writing of the show, not about your dislike of it

there is a difference between saying "i don't like X because i found the pacing boring" and saying "X has bad pacing", the first one is a statement about your personal experience, while the second one is a criticism of how the story is constructed.

of course, people can dislike whatever they want. nobody needs to justify why they didn't enjoy something. but if you start making claims about the quality of the writing, then you need to actually analyze the writing itself.

writing quality is not entirely objective, but if you make a lot of sweeping claims about a show like "characters are bad, it is full of plot holes, characterization is inconsistent" u cannot try to excuse yourself by saying "but it is just my opinion dude" ​

Just to preface, I have only read Hamlet and Macbeth. I know a bit about King Lear and some bits from the other plays but I won’t bring them up in this argument because I believe I am qualified to talk about his works in its entirety.

I have 2 main issues with Shakespeare and I’ll try to discuss them here at length and I hope to be as clear as possible.

1. Shakespeare insists upon itself and constantly affirms its moral viewpoint.

What I mean by this is that Shakespeare prioritizes driving the point home rather than leaving it linger in the viewer. It constantly ensures that the audience knows why the characters behave in a certain way and leaves no room for actual thought (Because if a character ever explains what they’re thinking, interpretation instantly ceases to exist, that’s just how literature works).

For example, Hamlet constantly reflects on his own indecision and emotional state instead of simply letting us infer it from his actions. Of course his hesitation creates enormous psychological strain and affects every decision he makes. Yet the play doesn’t let you figure that out on your own. It constantly reaffirms it through his soliloquies. (We all know that in literature and theatre, soliloquies and monologues are bad writing because they insist on things that can be understood with less words. Why waste time actually evoking an emotion when the reader can just check the 'he is sad' box on their spreadsheet and move on? If we already technically know he's depressed, making us sit through the poetry of it is just bad writing).

The part where Hamlet asks himself whether “to be, or not to be” is unnecessary. It’s already self-evident from everything he’s done that he’s conflicted. Shakespeare didn’t trust me to notice (Thankfully he repeated it in one of the most famous passages ever written so even I couldn’t miss it).

Or even when Macbeth struggles with murdering Duncan, he spends entire speeches explaining his doubts and ambition. The floating dagger, his hesitation, his behavior, those already tell us everything. But Shakespeare just keeps going. (Imagine writing characters with an internal conflict).

The play cannot risk the audience feeling ambiguous toward Hamlet’s thoughts. It needs to ensure that whatever Hamlet is thinking, you’re thinking about that too. Every time he launches into another philosophical speech, Shakespeare makes sure you’re emotionally invested and can easily recognize Hamlet’s motivation. (As opposed to… not understanding the protagonist of the play you’re watching).

Hamlet is weak, miserable, indecisive, and often painfully self-aware, and Shakespeare knows that all too well, so in an attempt to make the audience sympathize with him he has him verbalize every emotion. (Characters communicating their psychology? Bad writing).

This problem persists whenever Hamlet makes a mistake. Characters like Horatio, the Ghost, Gertrude, and Claudius constantly discuss what happened, why it matters, and what Hamlet should do. This would be fine, but Shakespeare deals with it too quickly. At times he poses a question which he then immediately lets another character respond to, leaving the audience with no actual stance on the matter (Unless, of course, they decide to disagree with the character… but let’s not get carried away).

The dialogue often functions less as actual human one-to-one communication than as a means for thematic resolution.

Normally humans don’t behave like that. We don’t speak in carefully structured speeches and the people we’re talking to don’t respond with equally well-structured speeches. It’s just not realistic. It’s just a tool to make sure you’re on the same level as the story (That is why we know that theatre drama is bad writing).

It’s like Hamlet argues Thesis A, then Horatio gives Counter Thesis B with reasons X, Y, and Z why Hamlet should reconsider.

When real human discourse happens, usually it’s awkward and messy. If somebody trauma dumps, people don’t immediately answer with a perfectly organized philosophical rebuttal. Yet Shakespeare falls into this error a number of times: Hamlet with the Ghost, Hamlet with Horatio, Macbeth with Lady Macbeth, Brutus with Cassius, Lear with Kent… honestly people in Shakespeare just keep talking about the themes instead of bottling up their feelings like normal people.

The characters just feel like mouthpieces reflecting what Shakespeare is trying to deliver, deconstructing any audience interpretation or agency over how the audience should feel. At times Shakespeare shows what characters are feeling through action, but then he ruins all that by having them explain themselves (Because obviously showing and telling can’t coexist).

And even though I dislike bringing in other writers as comparison, I will mention a couple here just to reiterate my point.

Such examples of stories handling deep issues better include modern films where the protagonist silently stares out of a rainy window for seven minutes. This really drives home how awkward human interaction is. Another example is Unimeko, which is well known for having characters talk like normal people and not engage in monologuing ever.

2. Shakespeare is at the core a very repetitive writer.

This point is pretty self-explanatory with the main differentiating factor of his stories literally just being tragic misunderstandings, ambition, revenge, and kings making terrible decisions. Yet I want to expand on it a little more, especially regarding Hamlet’s character development.

As stated before, Hamlet is indecisive, miserable, emotionally unstable, and talks a big game. The play does a very good job exploring this. Nonetheless, the way Shakespeare treats his character is more like a reset point to fall back on.

At the beginning of every act, it feels like Hamlet starts doubting himself again, literally overshadowing every advancement that’s been made. (Characters relapsing into old habits? Again, bad writing)

Almost every Shakespeare tragedy is as follows:

1. The protagonist acquires a flawed mindset (ambition, jealousy, indecision, pride, etc.).

2. Their flaws lead to catastrophe.

3. They emotionally break down.

4. Another character gives them advice in a very verbose speech.

5. The protagonist reaches a revelation.

6. They continue making mistakes anyway.

7. The tragedy ends with everyone dying.

Shakespeare is quite flawed in how he deals with character progression, and at its simplest there are two problems.

1. He dances around the same problem.

His protagonists are always set to similar emotional states.

Hamlet doubts himself.

Macbeth doubts himself.

Lear doubts himself.

Othello doubts himself.

It’s basically the same issue every time: humans having recurring psychological flaws. (The fact that all of these are executed differently does not matter at all, also, people should permanently solve their emotional issues after one good conversation. Anything else is bad writing).

Each play adds a nuance, but they just feel like iterations of each other and no new advancement has been made (Apparently different characters exploring different facets of similar themes is now called “repetition").

2. Character progression feels too rudimentary.

As stated, each play handles a different issue and then eventually resolves it.

Which is a problem in and of itself because real character growth shouldn’t be defined that easily; it should feel natural.

Anyone arguing for Hamlet’s development can very easily point to one scene and say, “See? There he developed.”

Unfortunately, natural character progression doesn’t work like that.

Development is where, when inspecting the same character, you notice behaviors he wouldn’t have exhibited before or when he mentally matures. It should feel like a never-ending slope, because there is neither an end goal nor a definite checkpoint.

Rather, Hamlet’s development feels like concrete steps, as if Shakespeare intentionally wrote dramatic turning points into a five-act tragedy (The audacity).

The framing of these breakthroughs can make them feel more concrete than Hamlet’s later behavior justifies.

In defining these crucial moments where he develops, Shakespeare overrides the fact that Hamlet’s defining trait is his inability to completely escape his own flaws.

It creates a dissonance because every time Hamlet hesitates again, I can’t help but ask:

“Didn’t we just deal with that?”

(Because every single time self-doubts happens it is just the exact same identical thing, and bad writing)

---

In conclusion,

These are just a few critiques I had while reading Shakespeare and I hope I was able to deliver my points clearly.

Thanks for reading.

(If these arguments sound ridiculous when applied to Shakespeare, that’s largely because they’re treating deliberate literary devices like soliloquies, thematic recurrence, dramatic rhetoric, and non-linear psychological growth as if they were accidental writing mistakes. That’s the joke).

re uploaded because of bad translations