Shakespeare is at first frustrating, initially because he is hard to understand, but later on, when one begins to understand the language and plot, he becomes frustrating because one never quite knows where he stands on things. As I struggled to figure out the answers contained in some of this plays, I gradually came to realize that these plays are all about teasing out the dividing line between the good or admirable and the bad or shameful. The dividing line is drawn along so many aspects of a particular question of life, and this leads to a very nuanced view of the human experience. Where does contemplation become an excuse for or cause of inaction? At what point does professed love become falsehood? Where does confidence dissolve into self doubt or become corrupted into arrogance? In Hamlet contemplation is obviously a good thing, when one compare Laertes’ reaction to his plight with Hamlet’s. But it becomes a bad thing when Hamlet overthinks his predicament and allows the king to live once he has all the proof he needs. Living the good life is all about towing the narrow line. Shakespeare is good, and so universally revered though the ages, because he tries to tease out a rough idea of this line though stories and characters and language. It is the universal, timeless question. People who give us easy, ready answers are popular but not lasting.