Is T.S. Eliot's criticism too harsh, or is it along the correct lines of what many people believe? Shakespeare's masterpiece, Hamlet, was extremely dry and contained sickly humor that many people found hard to understand. It was proved to myself that this reading was not interesting and now it should be proven to whom it may concern, why Hamlet was not one of Shakespeare's best writings.
             First of all, why in the world did Shakespeare drag this play along like a young girl with a raggedy doll that not even the world could pry from her hands. There was no need for Shakespeare to carry this play out like he did. The play is extremely puzzling and skips around too many different parts making it difficult for the reader to interpret Shakespeare's point. Certain scenes in this play were not needed and forced me to the point of wanting to put the book down and never pick it back up. Too much information was squeezed into the reader's mind, and therefore writing a shorter piece of work would have been much more effective and easier to enjoy and concentrate on.
             Second, I am sure many hours and much man labor were put into revising this play. It is unbelievable that this piece of work went through such a variety of people without being shortened. I don't know if it was just the way that "masterpieces" were
             Bigham 2
             written back in the day, but one person should have realized that much of the story was pointless. I thoroughly enjoyed the battle between Laertes and Hamlet, but everything up to that pivotal point, needed to be shortened and much more clear and precise in order for the reader to want to continue with the studying of Hamlet.
             Third, it was a little bit harsh for T.S. Eliot to say that this piece of work was an artistic failure. It was a
             ...