What is Shakespeare's impersonality in the art of characterization ?

The first thing to acknowledge when observing that there
is an impersonality to the art of Shakespeare's characterizations is that you could and
should say this about any good dramatist.  A work of drama differs from a novel, and a
major way in which it differs is how the story is told.

In
a novel, there is always a narrative point of view -- first person, second personal,
third person -- through which the story is told.  This makes the work feel "personal,"
especially if it is written in the first person.  Those reading a novel critically often
look for the point of view to give them information about the writer's own point of
view, sometimes noticing that this or that character seems to "represent" the author's
viewpoint.

In a play, the author must create all characters
with equal fullness.  There is, to be sure, a protagonist, but, the play is not told
from that character's point of view.  So, in drama, there is no narrative
mode to give the reader (or audience member) a link to the author's
personal perspective. Shakespeare was certainly a master of creating all his characters
with equal fullness.

Another reason that we should regard
Shakespeare as an impersonal writer is the simple fact that we know so few real facts
about his life.  There has been tons of speculation, in fact, that these plays were
written by someone else altogether.  It is hard to be very analytical about the
relationship between the author's personal point of view and the characterizations in
his work if we can't even agree who the author, in fact,
is.

So, whether you are considering that plays always
present an impersonal point of view, or you note the few facts (and authorship
controversy) about his life, Shakespeare's plays must be noted as impersonal in their
characterizations.