Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Slater
I don't think the "feedback loop" concept explains why only a handful of artists have fallen into that loop and been declared to be among the greatest ever. I think it's far more plausible to conclude that Shakespeare's plays are actually, by and large, better than those of his contemporaries, and that these other writers were not, as you say, equally talented.
|
So before I respond, I must first say that I do believe that Shakespeare is one of the best writers in the English language. I can say it quite confidently about his plays, though I'd probably say he's "among" the best sonneteers. There's a certain subjectivity there, of course, but I think there's always a slight danger in conflating endurance and popularity with concepts like "best" and "greatest." Endurance
is one metric we can use to say someone's work is great...but it's not the only one (and yes, I know that wasn't your claim).
I've been in the academic game for long enough now that my thoughts on the matter have generally settled...but here's an illustrative anecdote. When I was still a Ph.D. student, I had to get through the hurdle of "comprehensive exams," which is quite a misnomer. For my field of early modern literature, you have to create a list of pertinent text of around 130-150 works -- about 2/3 of those being primary sources (plays, poetry collections, some prose), and the other 1/3 being critical texts on various elements of the field. I think I had eight Shakespeare plays on my list, and perhaps thirty by other playwrights. Since poetry was and is my specialty, I already knew most worthwhile works by early modern poets, but still had a few to discover. Going into the process, I expected to read a bunch of early modern non-Shakespeare plays and come out of the process saying "Yes, Shakespeare's unquestionably better." Instead, I came out of the process saying "Yes...Shakespeare's better. Usually." This is a subtle but important distinction, and it surprised me. There
is a certain
je nais ce quois to Shakespeare, and I'll never try to pretend that there isn't
usually some superiority to his language/characterization/plotting etc. over his contemporaries. And yet when you start to read through the various works by said contemporaries, it's remarkable how strikingly similar they often are in
most respects. Again, I'm talking about the plays here, as I think the poetry question is a lot thornier.
What I hope my posts have conveyed (and perhaps I've done a lousy job of it) is that Shakespeare is certainly great, and for plays, perhaps the greatest.
However, it's not a case of him being so far ahead of the rest that there's not room for discussion. This semester I happen to be teaching Marlowe's
Doctor Faustus as well as Shakespeare's
The Tempest, and I fully plan on informally asking my class at the end which of the two they thought was "better." I'll be shocked if some don't choose the Marlowe. That won't mean that "Marlowe is better than Shakespeare," but rather that there's a lot more nuance to the idea that "Shakespeare is the greatest ever."