If you ever need a deconstruction of Shakespearian plays, you can count on me.
It's OK, I've got this one.
"This play is a play written to appeal to as many people as possible in order to pay Shakespeare's bills and support his family. It was probably written over the course of a few weeks to months and thus we cannot assume that every word in it has the seventeen layers of intrigue and meaning that my professor told me they have. Furthermore, we probably cannot assume Shakespeare really did imbue it with every bizarre thread of subtextual meaning churned out over the intervening 400 years by countless thousands of English scholars and students desperate for a new slant for their book (required by tenure) or thesis (required to make the $100,000 education worthwhile)."
I'm sending this to my old English teacher. This is just the sort of point I was trying to get across to her all year. However, due to my age I fought back with my answer to an exam question involving three separate critics - A. C. Bradley, F. R. Leavis... and some other guy. The question was to write an interview involving all three, so I put them at their ages should they have all lived long enough to be in one room together. Bradley changed his mind and fell asleep (being over a hundred years old and very tired), leaving Leavis to complain that the remaining critic was just a young layman with silly new-age ideas.
On a side-note, English teachers seem to be rather humourless.