Shakespeare’s work has bee credited for many centuries to modern times. He was described as a genius writer as his work is being used in literature studies. There have been many critics of his work due to his excellence and the way he corrupted words in his writing. There has been works by scholars that critically discuss Shakespeare, his work, and his identity. From the historic to the modern times, Shakespeare has been condemned as much as he is loved and admired. There are many issues relating to Shakespeare, which have continued to interest his audience, and thus a call for the attention of critics. The most controversial issue was the manner in which Shakespeare mixed humor with tragedy. This not only failed to bring out the unity of place and time, but also failed to reach the standards and rules of a classical drama according to critics. The critics also claimed that Shakespeare‘s false wit had corrupted language used in the classic drama. This paper intends to explain the work of Shakespeare in relation to quotations from the different sites to support the discussion about his life of literal work.
There are some philosophers that do not agree as Samuel Johnson to the fact his critics were raising. He disagreed that Shakespeare had not adhered to the rules of classical drama. His Critics from the 18th century accused him of having a restraint on artistic work, while others praised him for his unique imagination (Hanon 512).
The quotation in this instance by which Richard III tells his troops “Remember who you are to cope withal; A sort of vagabonds, rascals and run always; A sacrum of Britain’s and base lackey peasants; Whom their o’ercloyed Country vomits forth; To desperate adventures and assured destruction” (V.iii 315 – 319).
Many critics noticed and observed that “Richer III” was full of curses, prophesies, and oaths. The critics argued that when Richard swore as a warrior of his success, it was only a false oath that had false prophesies and curses. This meant that Richard’s character was questioned by most critics, although there were other people who defended Richard’s actions.
They suggested that there was enough reason for Richard to act as he did. Critics suggested that the greatest problems with Shakespeare were that people had become too fond of him and could not see beyond the thesis and the characters in the classical play.
It was interesting to note that the Richard’s wickedness did not only withstand against the test of time but also greatly influenced Shakespeare work in many different ways. The history of war was familiar from the historic to the modern times. In that case, some critics had termed Richard as a part of dry history while his defenders termed him as a fascinating part of history who not only joked about his victims, but also joked about himself (Shakespeare 256).
In Shakespeare‘s”A Midsummer Night’s Dream”, he made his characters cross to another world of imagination. His focus was mainly on what the fairies did in their daily life, but not how the fairies look like. Puck was one of his favorite characters who helped the other fairies to relax “scape the serpents tongue” (III, ii, 80 -81). It is in this line, the fairies assured the audience that this was only a pleasant dream by saying, “that I have ‘nointed an Athenian’s eye/ and so far am glad that it so far sort/ as this their jangling I esteem a sport” (II, ii 351 -353).
Shakespeare uses Puck’s character in these lines, to try and help the audience to relax. This is where the critics have insisted that there was very poor character development in the classic play. They have also suggested that the only important character in the play is Puck (Hanon 512). However, other people have defended the play as they suggested that, though there were few characters in the movie, Shakespeare used Puck to bring out fun-loving humor, magical fancy, evocative language, and wild focus which made the play more interesting and unique. Puck was seen by critics to have been overworked, but loved by others for his subtle but mischievous character. Critics have also accused Shakespeare of character incompetence, while many other people do not mind having one important character as long as the play is interesting, amazing, and humorous.
This play has been compared by critics to a folly’s adventure and an influence on the spirits world. Some critics supposed that the film needed an increase on maturity of the mind in order to become an honored piece of preferred work. Although this was not position held by all critics, other critics suggested that there was no room for maturity in Shakespeare’s work. However, most people from the historic times to the modern times have loved Shakespeare’s work and his plays. This has been termed as a combination that is not only extraordinary, but also lucky accidents that blow the audience’s breathe away.
Shakespeare’s identity can be read from his work and plays. He was a man who created interesting interventions due to his love of mixing tragedy and humor. Shakespeare also had master skills of predicting and evenly balancing every matter in his work, which related to personal taste. It is obvious that his work was not an act of lucky accident but it took preparation, structure, plot, and mastery to create. The perplexities in his work are a proof of his splendid and harmonious expressions (Harold 522). Analysis of Shakespeare character, identity, and work has been carried through out from the historic time to the present days. He proved to be a creative writer who used imaginations to develop characters that portrayed critical themes. Shakespeare not only affected the literary world through his work, but also left a mark that has and will continue to be remembered in many generations to come.