One aspect of Shakespeare's writing that has received quite a bit of attention, and a lot of it unfavourable, is his use of the pun. Samuel Johnson, a very astute Shakespeare commentator, thought it was his tragic flaw: "A quibble is to Shakespeare what luminous vapours are to the traveller! he follows it to all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way, sure to engulf him in the mire. It has some malignant power over his mind, and its fascinations are irresistible." On another occasion he compared Shakespeare's punning to Cleopatra's rejection of the world for love, which is a bit hyperbolic, but it does get his point across. Personally, I'm of two minds on the subject. At times, in certain plays, the wordplay seems to be a bit too prevalent, to the point of interfering with what's going on otherwise. At others, of course, it can be funny and/or thought-provoking. But I'm also starting to think that Shakespeare's decision-making process was similar to that of a great musician: he'd set up the situation (or problem) and let it resolve itself naturally according to the laws of physics and/or psychology. And the force in play in regard to puns is simply this: they are very, very important, an integral part of conversation and thought, and a source of generation for language itself. Over the next week or so, I'll be trying to support these contentions, and to demonstrate why they were so important to Shakespeare.