Continuing with the topic of interactionist theory and Shakespeare, let's consider the play that comes immediately to mind whenever psychological and/or philosophical exploration becomes the issue. Hamlet, according to my theory anyway, was written for the purpose of finding a storyline that would allow the audience to watch a young, talented, honest person be turned inside out in a variety of situations. From this perspective, the best way to "understand" this complex and contradictory character is to realize that his actions are a surprise to him as much as they are to us. And assuming that the character has in his mind an over-arching plan for how he will behave throughout the entire play (or even a scene or line ahead) is an error; when the part is acted that way, boredom is the most common result. As I mentioned the other day, the character does not know what is going to happen next; the actor does, but that's quite a different matter. (Rupert Everett, when discussing his excellent performance in the film version of A Midsummer Night's Dream from 1999, said that he simply tried to say his lines as though he were just thinking of them.)

And to support my theory regarding the intentions of the playwright in this case, I would point out how Shakespeare often gives broad hints regarding his thematic subject matter at the beginnings of his plays, usually in fairly innocuous ways. The opening here is a simple question, but one that continues to puzzle human beings to this day: "Who's there?"