Adhering to the Marxist view of literature and methodology, Bian Zhilin filtered and accepted T. S. Eliot's Shakespearean criticism. He frequently referred to Eliot's Shakespearean criticism inTowards a New Appraisal of Shakespearean Tragedy. Bian agreed with Eliot's appraisal of Shakespeare's great status in literature, but in the analysis ofHamlet, Bian Zhilin criticized Eliot for paying more attention to art than thought, and insisting on"consistency"standards and the concept of"objective correlative"to judge the failure ofHamlet. Eliot held that Hamlet was dominated by an emotion which was inexpressible. Hamlet's bafflement at the absence of an objective equivalent to his feelings was a prolongation of the bafflement of his creator in the face of his artistic problem. Hamlet was up against the difficulty that his disgust was occasioned by his mother, but that his mother was not an adequate equivalent for it. Bian Zhilin appraised the success ofHamletwith Marxist literature and art that reflected the nature of social philosophy. He held that the core ofHamletwas a reflection of the character and society of the age. In the general evaluation of Shakespeare's plays, Bian Zhilin criticized Eliot's emphasis on"flow"rather than"source. "He denied Eliot's Christian thinking and interpreted Shakespeare's plays with humanism from the perspective of social nature and the relationship between literature and society. Bian and Eliot were different because they lived in different countries having different social and literary climates. Bian Zhilin lived in China in a society where Marxism spread and became the mainstream ideology. He accepted the literary and artistic ideas of Marxism, while Eliot lived in capitalist Britain and upheld the concept of Christian humanism. Bian Zhilin's filtered acceptance reflects the dominant role of social ideology and the independence and activity of Chinese scholars in accepting Western academic thought