An important thing for a reader to keep in mind when reading commentary on Shakespeare, and this includes this blog, is that all of it is written after the fact. In other words, the commentator is dealing with a finished product, in this case a play or poem, and working from there. It is a very different situation from the one that Shakespeare was in when he was writing. He was on the other side of the process entirely. I mention this because it occasionally occurs when reading criticism that a mistake in tone reduces the effectiveness of the argument in question. By tone, I mean the writer's attitude toward the subject and toward him or herself. An error in logic occurs when a writer positions him or herself above Shakespeare in some regard simply because he or she came later, and therefore has read Freud, or has used a computer, or some such thing. This doesn't follow. There has not been a writer before or since with the accomplishments of Shakespeare, and a commentator who is not aware of the fact should not be taken too seriously. And if there is not an understanding regarding the difference between writing about a play and writing one, he or she shouldn't be read at all.