It seems important that Shakespeare was and is highly regarded by writers and poets outside the English tradition. His genius is pretty universally recognized.
With Shakespeare, our idea of what makes literature great is kind of based on the special things he does so well: characters w psychological complexity, word choice that lends itself to close reading, ambiguity, playing with social and literary conventions. It doesn’t make sense to say he’s not great. If he wasn’t the smartest or the best, that doesn’t matter. He’s what western literature has formed itself around.
I think there is also a lock in effect. Shakespeare in part is seen as so good, because for centuries he has been the model of the good. This gives him extra points because our actual evaluation of what is good is somewhat contaminated by "is this Shakespeare-like?". Which obviously he scores VERY high on.
I suspect there are indeed things that have been written after World War 1 that are as good as Shakespeare's plays, but it's also basically impossible for someone working today to get the kind of reputation for being The Greatest Writer that Shakespeare has, regardless of how good their fiction is.
Also, it's interesting that one of the biggest recent Broadway shows is basically the same kind of historical verse drama that Shakespeare wrote... https://youtu.be/iXunxTyrpSY?si=9_rH2VVYMy7hasJk
what if I said Joyce? Or Faulkner? I don't disagree with what you are saying, but there might be a caveat. In philosophy there was a time when there was a great "drift" away from theological-philosophy and so even the religious like Berkeley were no longer discussing religion through a godlyl lens but through a humanly lens. So yes many stand above the crowd. Marlowe, I've heard was more popular in his own time and maybe a few others might have been. If Shakespeare did not write in his own works, well it wasn't Marlowe. Marlowe to Shakespeare is Gorgias to Plato. But there is some truth to the era theory, but if Shakespeare really was not considered the best of his era, well I've read others say that, I don't know, but if he wasn't, then perhaps he has lasted not because he had less competition, maybe he really just was the best of his time and really don't much about the rest.
Maybe it's about tiers. We're never going to get another Darwin, but we can and should keep getting Goulds and Triverses. Likewise, I discovered Nozick late, I feel. There could be an issue with discovery in philosophy, whereas in previous times, a breakout philosopher would be a "sensation" that crossed into other domains, affecting the arts, etc., like Derrida or Sartre. That seems impossible in the current environment.
I think solving a handful of your 54 ideas would get someone to at least Nozick-level, but it may take a while for people to appreciate them.
It seems important that Shakespeare was and is highly regarded by writers and poets outside the English tradition. His genius is pretty universally recognized.
I agree. He was a genius, and the fact his context gave him permission to be a genius is a big part of that.
With Shakespeare, our idea of what makes literature great is kind of based on the special things he does so well: characters w psychological complexity, word choice that lends itself to close reading, ambiguity, playing with social and literary conventions. It doesn’t make sense to say he’s not great. If he wasn’t the smartest or the best, that doesn’t matter. He’s what western literature has formed itself around.
Yeah, 100% this as well.
I think there is also a lock in effect. Shakespeare in part is seen as so good, because for centuries he has been the model of the good. This gives him extra points because our actual evaluation of what is good is somewhat contaminated by "is this Shakespeare-like?". Which obviously he scores VERY high on.
> The low-hanging fruit has been plucked.
One fruit remains: epistemology - the one thing people with (almost) any ideology fear.
I suspect there are indeed things that have been written after World War 1 that are as good as Shakespeare's plays, but it's also basically impossible for someone working today to get the kind of reputation for being The Greatest Writer that Shakespeare has, regardless of how good their fiction is.
Also, it's interesting that one of the biggest recent Broadway shows is basically the same kind of historical verse drama that Shakespeare wrote... https://youtu.be/iXunxTyrpSY?si=9_rH2VVYMy7hasJk
what if I said Joyce? Or Faulkner? I don't disagree with what you are saying, but there might be a caveat. In philosophy there was a time when there was a great "drift" away from theological-philosophy and so even the religious like Berkeley were no longer discussing religion through a godlyl lens but through a humanly lens. So yes many stand above the crowd. Marlowe, I've heard was more popular in his own time and maybe a few others might have been. If Shakespeare did not write in his own works, well it wasn't Marlowe. Marlowe to Shakespeare is Gorgias to Plato. But there is some truth to the era theory, but if Shakespeare really was not considered the best of his era, well I've read others say that, I don't know, but if he wasn't, then perhaps he has lasted not because he had less competition, maybe he really just was the best of his time and really don't much about the rest.
Maybe it's about tiers. We're never going to get another Darwin, but we can and should keep getting Goulds and Triverses. Likewise, I discovered Nozick late, I feel. There could be an issue with discovery in philosophy, whereas in previous times, a breakout philosopher would be a "sensation" that crossed into other domains, affecting the arts, etc., like Derrida or Sartre. That seems impossible in the current environment.
I think solving a handful of your 54 ideas would get someone to at least Nozick-level, but it may take a while for people to appreciate them.