[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

One would first have to be able to have sex in order to give up on it.

I mean...the essence of Petrarchism is yearning for an unattainable lover, so whatever your personal circumstances (which are nobody's business but yours), you're thematically well-positioned to write a Petrarchan sonnet sequence.

(Fun fact: after writing 60 sonnets in Delia, which starts to get fairly repetitive after awhile, Samuel Daniel ends his final sonnet in the sequence in the best way possible with the line: "I say no more. I fear I said too much." Truer words were never written.)

[N. Matheson]

Positioned, yes. I lack such a skill. I do not know how people manage to churn out such lengthy sequences.

[Michael Cantor]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

I do not know how people manage to churn out such lengthy sequences.

For starters, they spend more time writing, and less time talking about writing.

[Sarah-Jane Crowson]

Your post had me running to Heywood's, 'Fair Maid of the West' - as I think context here is so important. Shakespeare arrived at a very precise time and place. And he was surely, sure-footedly, political. And an entertainer, and a great writer. But sometimes I think that we don't read enough of Johnson, and Heywood, and the writers around Shakespeare but instead leap on an easy acceptance of what the past and present deify as mastery.

Have you read 'The Pooh Perplex'? It's a great lampoon of scholarly perspectives at the mid (20. When I re-read it now, I wonder again whether it is the original author or the scholarly perspective which is more important, and how that all fits within the needs of contemporary scholars to make a living.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Sarah-Jane Crowson

Your post had me running to Heywood's, 'Fair Maid of the West' - as I think context here is so important. Shakespeare arrived at a very precise time and place. And he was surely, sure-footedly, political. And an entertainer, and a great writer. But sometimes I think that we don't read enough of Johnson, and Heywood, and the writers around Shakespeare but instead leap on an easy acceptance of what the past and present deify as mastery.

Honestly, if there's but one thing that anyone takes away from this thread, I hope it's what you just said so concisely. Shakespeare's greatness is beyond question, but he certainly didn't eclipse his peers. He just generally shone a bit brighter, and benefited from duration. Saying as much is not sacrilege, but simply highlights that the 1580s-1610s was a very special time in English literature -- one for which the overused term zeitgeist certainly applies. One could made a compelling speculative argument that had Shakespeare not existed, there are several candidates for playwrights who would have held a similar place in literary history. That does not detract from the fact that Shakespeare is the person in that place, and deservedly so. I just agree that more of his peers deserve to be read and taught, because there's some truly exceptional drama and poetry from that condensed period.

[N. Matheson]

I'm sorry, but I vehemently believe this is wrong. Art is a competition and exists on a hierarchy. If you don't reach the top of said hierarchy, you have failed. It's why I hold the view every poet since Shakespeare more or less failed because they could not surpass him.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

I'm sorry, but I vehemently believe this is wrong. Art is a competition and exists on a hierarchy. If you don't reach the top of said hierarchy, you have failed. It's why I hold the view every poet since Shakespeare more or less failed because they could not surpass him.

We've heard you, N. You've shared that opinion before.

[Roger Slater]

Originally Posted by N. Matheson

I'm sorry, but I vehemently believe this is wrong. Art is a competition and exists on a hierarchy. If you don't reach the top of said hierarchy, you have failed. It's why I hold the view every poet since Shakespeare more or less failed because they could not surpass him.

No, you don't believe that. I think you're just trying to be provocative by saying very stupid things but with an air of innocence to elicit patient responses from well-meaning people. No one could possibly "vehemently believe" what you claim to vehemently believe. No one. You're just playing games here. Ultimately, you're being a troll, but a hard-to-detect one since you are not engaging in name-calling or insults. Sadly, though, you are not at the top of the troll hierachy so you probably shouldn't bother.

[N. Matheson]

I was unaware you had the ability to read my mind and therefore can tell me exactly what I believe and don't believe.

[Roger Slater]

Yes, I'm sometimes quite perceptive. And what I haven't perceived is any effort on your part to respond to the substance of what anyone has posted to address your concerns. If you actually believe that all artists are complete failures if they cannot be the #1 greatest ever to practice their art, that is so self-evidently ridiculous that I once again assert that you don't believe it.