"Parison and the Impossible Comparison." New Essays on Hamlet. Ed. Mark Thornton Burnett and John Manning. New York: AMS Press, 1994.
"The Tragedy of Order: Julius Caesar." Northrop Frye on Shakespeare. New Haven: Yale UP 1986. Hunter, G.K. "Shakespeare and the Traditions of Tragedy." Wells, Stanley, ed.
Vision press limited, London. 1st published in the British Commonwealth. 1976. Pg: 179. Jones, E. "The Problem of Hamlet and the Oedipus–Complex," Introduction to Hamlet, by W. Shakespeare.
"Clue #7: Revenge Tragedy". Writing Assignment #7: The Question of Revenge in Shakespeare's Hamlet. By Hannusch, Brent. 1999.
“An Explication of the Player’s Speech.” Modern Critical Interpretations: Hamlet. Ed. Harold Bloom. New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1986. Rpt.
New Essays on Hamlet. (New York: AMS Press, 1994). Evans Lloyd Gareth. Shakespeare IV. (London: Oxford university Press, 1967).
This nihilistic approach, however, not only disregards many of the play’s moments of philosophical insight, but it also completely misinterprets Shakespeare’s intent. That is not to say that Lear is without fault at the end of the play; as Shakespeare surely understood, Lear is still human, and as such, he is subject to human frailty. What is most important about Lear, however, is not that he dies a flawed man but that he dies an improved man. Therefore, although King Lear might first appear “bleak,” Shakespeare suggests that Lear’s life, and human life in general, is worth all of its misery because it is often through suffering that people gain knowledge about the true nature of their individual selves and about the nature of all humanity (Roche 164). From the very beginning of the play, Shakespeare suggests that King Lear has much to learn.