General Poetry Discussion

[rousseau]

I seem to have stalled a bit on the Eratosphere front. They're adamant about me making 15 critiques before I post any of my own work, and if I'm honest I'm just not finding myself inspired to critique the writing that's happening there. That's not to say it isn't good, it is, but a lot of it doesn't seem to stray too far from the same norms that I'm not really interested in writing or reading.

So lately there's been more sports, more outdoors, more journaling, and less poetry in my life. I'd actually like to be writing more but parenthood and work is taking a lot out of me.

But WAB if you're still kicking if you have any general critique of my writing I'd be happy to hear it here or privately.

 

[rousseau]

I also voice searched for Rilke's birthday on Google today and got results for Alicia Keys, so maybe this hobby is out of date anyway?

I should also add, I like reading the poetry and critiques on Eratosphere, but sitting down for 45 minutes at a time and carefully critiquing it is another thing entirely when you have a kid under one.

 

[rousseau]

A yearish later and this post from Wiploc is my biggest learning.

It's funny, I've had a small number of people astounded by my work, but for most I don't think it's just disinterest, but also discomfort when writing moves beyond the surface level. At this point I'm ready to become more private with my writing, and only share with those who actually have an interest.

 

[WAB]

I seem to have stalled a bit on the Eratosphere front. They're adamant about me making 15 critiques before I post any of my own work, and if I'm honest I'm just not finding myself inspired to critique the writing that's happening there. That's not to say it isn't good, it is, but a lot of it doesn't seem to stray too far from the same norms that I'm not really interested in writing or reading.

So lately there's been more sports, more outdoors, more journaling, and less poetry in my life. I'd actually like to be writing more but parenthood and work is taking a lot out of me.

But WAB if you're still kicking if you have any general critique of my writing I'd be happy to hear it here or privately.

Aye, still kicking at the pricks, rousseau.

OK. I'd like to make you happy, as I have developed a certain affection for you.

BUT - you must give me a specific poem to critique. Don't ask me to select one, because to do so prejudices me from the beginning.

Once you've decided on a specific poem, post it again here.

The crit will be academic (read cold and objective as possible), not "friendly".

**I wish you could find my crits at Eratosphere, but I don't think any are left.

ETA: Egads! I see you asked for a "general critique" of your writing. Before I say anything else, a good crit of one specific poem will serve you best.

But, if it's something general: Concentrate more on concrete imagery and less on reportage.

 

[rousseau]

I seem to have stalled a bit on the Eratosphere front. They're adamant about me making 15 critiques before I post any of my own work, and if I'm honest I'm just not finding myself inspired to critique the writing that's happening there. That's not to say it isn't good, it is, but a lot of it doesn't seem to stray too far from the same norms that I'm not really interested in writing or reading.

So lately there's been more sports, more outdoors, more journaling, and less poetry in my life. I'd actually like to be writing more but parenthood and work is taking a lot out of me.

But WAB if you're still kicking if you have any general critique of my writing I'd be happy to hear it here or privately.

Aye, still kicking at the pricks, rousseau.

OK. I'd like to make you happy, as I have developed a certain affection for you.

BUT - you must give me a specific poem to critique. Don't ask me to select one, because to do so prejudices me from the beginning.

Once you've decided on a specific poem, post it again here.

The crit will be academic (read cold and objective as possible), not "friendly".

**I wish you could find my crits at Eratosphere, but I don't think any are left.

ETA: Egads! I see you asked for a "general critique" of your writing. Before I say anything else, a good crit of one specific poem will serve you best.

But, if it's something general: Concentrate more on concrete imagery and less on reportage.

I appreciate the offer (and will likely take you up on it privately at some point), but lately I'm just not feeling my writing (the post you're responding to was made a few months ago). Combined with the pandemic stretching on (and on and on), and a few critical projects at work and I should likely keep my focus elsewhere, at least for now.

I agree with your critique, though, that's something I've noticed too and just started moving away from near the end of completing my recent project. At this point I'm realizing that almost everything I've done to date is a touch immature, although I believe I've written a few decent poems.

I do appreciate the activity in this thread. I was enjoying when you were posting poems a few months ago, although I had a bit of trouble keeping up. Life's been busy but it's nice to chat about something other than saving the world from time to time .

 

[WAB]

I originally posted this in the Shakespeare Authorship Controvery thread, but I don't think it will do anything there. So let me try it here:

***

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

Is far superior than the line as it might have been written by a lesser poet:

Attest a million in a little place.

?

Let your ears and your breath do the work, not just your brain.

 

[rousseau]

I originally posted this in the Shakespeare Authorship Controvery thread, but I don't think it will do anything there. So let me try it here:

***

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

Is far superior than the line as it might have been written by a lesser poet:

Attest a million in a little place.

?

Let your ears and your breath do the work, not just your brain.

I can think of a few reasons, but I'd be curious to hear yours first.

It's funny, I've been trying to revise a few of my poems where I'm not happy with the imagery, but when I change the imagery I change the rhythm and the poem stops working. Which may be what you're hinting at here: rhythm and emphasis. In my view Shakespeare's line rolls off the tongue and emphasizes a more colourful word.

Although I find the second line more readable, and I think too much of the former can confuse meaning. That's the issue I often find with Shakespeare, his meaning can be too shrouded. To me a balance between the two approaches is what I'd do.

 

[WAB]

I originally posted this in the Shakespeare Authorship Controvery thread, but I don't think it will do anything there. So let me try it here:

***

As a little quiz:

Can anyone tell me why this line, by Shakespeare:

Attest in little place a million.

Is far superior than the line as it might have been written by a lesser poet:

Attest a million in a little place.

?

Let your ears and your breath do the work, not just your brain.

I can think of a few reasons, but I'd be curious to hear yours first.

It's funny, I've been trying to revise a few of my poems where I'm not happy with the imagery, but when I change the imagery I change the rhythm and the poem stops working. Which may be what you're hinting at here: rhythm and emphasis. In my view Shakespeare's line rolls off the tongue and emphasizes a more colourful word.

Although I find the second line more readable, and I think too much of the former can confuse meaning. That's the issue I often find with Shakespeare, his meaning can be too shrouded. To me a balance between the two approaches is what I'd do.

Thanks for responding, rousseau.

You wrote this:

In my view Shakespeare's line rolls off the tongue and emphasizes a more colourful word.

Yes, it rolls off the tongue, and the key word (the more "colourful word, in your phrase) "million" is put at the end of the line.

In iambic pentameter, Shakespeare literally forces the reader to pronounce "million" with three syllables:

att/EST in LITT/le PLACE/ a/ MILL/i/ON (uppercase stressed, lowercase unstressed.)

The line comes from the beginning of Henry the Fifth, and the opening monologue by the chorus is in standard IP, with the Bard's usual substitutions and idiosyncrasies.

What the placement of "million" at the end of the line does is compel the reader to pronounce the word with three syllables. As unnatural as it sounds, since most of us pronounce "million" as two syllables. And such was the case in Shakespeare's day.

So, what the poet is doing is conveying the magnitude of the word "million", by compelling the listener (reader mainly) to add a syllable which would not be natural or reflexive.

The extra syllable in this case (in this line) represents the sheer magnitude that the word "million" signifies.

Derek Jacobi and several other actors I have seen realize this and give the word it's extra breath, it's extra syllable, to emphasize the magnitude of the word.

Some actors do NOT do this, but wreck the line by treating the word "million" as a feminine ending, which would make the line iambic tetrameter instead of pentameter.

A good actor will see that the word "million", placed at the end of the line, requires more emphasis, and that extra syllable; a poor actor will not (nor will a poor reader).

The poetry of William Shakespeare is rife with such things, which to the ordinary person is unnoticeable.

Here is a great video featuring the great actor Ian McKellen discussing a passage from Shakespeare's MacBeth. PLEASE watch it, rousseau, and anyone else interested in poetry and its power.

McKellen does a fantastic job of explaining exactly how superb Shakespeare was, and even gets (often merely by mention) into things like line length, meter, etc.

 

[rousseau]

In my view it's also worthwhile putting Shakespeare's work in it's historical context. He lived during the late 16th, early 17th century where displays of linguistic prowess were highly prized. But in the 20th century I think we're looking at a framework where modest is hottest so to speak.

Could Leonard Cohen have replicated some of what Shakespeare did in his time? Probably. Did he ever want to? Not really. That's not what his audience wanted.

I could be off-base, but I see Shakespeare as kind of like the Beatles. He was definitely a master of his era and an incredible writer, but since then poetry has become more sophisticated in it's simplicity, with fewer words rather than more. There is a popular perception that Shakespeare was the best, but I think that's largely because he was first. You really have to judge other, and later, writers on their cultural context.

 

[rousseau]

Thinking and spit-balling here for no other reason than to kill time. Writing and incentives.

incentive - a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something

I don't know a lot of about Shakespeare, but presumably he had a major incentive to write in the way that he did: he made a living from it. His style that emerged might have been a consequence of what would sell, so to speak. He could make money by being an extraordinary writer, so he became an extraordinary writer.

Contrast to Leonard Cohen as poet ca late 50s and early 60s. He followed his passion as a writer and ended up starving. When he finally figured out how to monetize his art it came in the form of songwriting, and the fact that he was even able to accomplish that was a rare chance in the universe.

Not to inject myself into this conversation, but as for my own writing I lose money by writing poetry, I'm actually disincentivized to write, or be public with it. Every month I spend writing is another month I'm not upskilling my software ability and making myself more sell-able on the job market. Every ounce of publicity I gain is another person wondering why the hell I write poetry.

And the publishing market today is like a lottery, who knows what will sell, and what does sell isn't often what we'd call art. Do any books of poetry really make any money these days?

Some food for thought.

 

[WAB]

Do any books of poetry really make any money?

Sadly, I believe most of the top selling poets are not very good. Maya Angelou is popular, and sells a lot, but while competent she is not exemplary. Mary Oliver is a good poet, often times exceptional. She sells well. Have you heard of poets like James Kavanaugh and Rod McKuen? Both poets sold a lot of books and were popular, but neither of them were very good. In fact, they were not very good at all. Those two wrote decades ago, however. I am not up on high-selling modern poets.

I am certain there are non-English language poets who sell well, but I am in no position to judge their work, since I believe poetry cannot ever be translated adequately: and I don't mean that the sense cannot be translated, I mean the sound. Poetry is different from prose not only in its economy of language, it's use of symbolism and metaphor - it should be special with respect to wholly sonic, musical, auditory qualities. A great poet is above all a lover of language.

***

I agree with what you say as regards judging poets according to their time, and context. There is nothing controversial about that, and I apologize if I ever intimated anything to the contrary.

You wrote something I don't understand:

There is a popular perception that Shakespeare was the best, but I think that's largely because he was first.

I disagree on two counts.

First, he was far from "first". Of course you know that he was only one of a myriad of poets and playwrights in his time. Chaucer wrote two centuries before Shakespeare. Marlowe started writing blank verse plays before Shakespeare did. Spenser and Sidney predate Shakespeare, as do a literal multitude of English language poets.

And let's forget about Dante, Virgil and Homer. It's actually amazing to try and fathom that Virgil wrote about 1500 years before Shakespeare; Homer's work stems from 500 to 700 years prior to Virgil (which amounts to nearly 2200 years BEFORE Shakespeare.

So, I don't know what you mean about Shakespeare being first? Pray thee, (Lol) what dost thou mean?

Second, Shakespeare is considered the greatest because virtually every play that carries his name has not only survived but thrived, and is being performed regularly around the world to this day. No other poet, playwright, dramatist, or writer has been nearly (not nearly) as successful. I submit that there are clear reasons why this is so. It's no accident, and it's not a matter of hero-worship, as the Oxfordians insist.**

So, I don't know what you mean about Shakespeare being the first?

**

As for Leonard Cohen, though I never got into him in depth, I can see by the poems you posted that he was a very fine poet. I'll try reading him more.


**(In case you missed my comments in another thread: There is significant doubt about the man from Stratford's authorship. I have no major beef against that doubt and am NOT a Stratfordian in any sense. When I refer to Shakespeare, I mean the person, whoever they were, that wrote the bulk of the work [some of it is clearly by other hands, but "Shakespeare" is almost immediately recognizable.] )

 

[rousseau]

First, he was far from the "first". Of course you know that he was one of a myriad of poets and playwrights in his time. Chaucer wrote two centuries before Shakespeare. Marlowe started writing blank verse plays before Shakespeare did. Spenser and Sidney predate Shakespeare, as do a literal multitude of English language poets.

Second, Shakespeare is considered the greatest because virtually every play that carries his name has not only survived but thrived, and is being performed regularly around the world to this day. No other poet, playwright, dramatist, or writer has been nearly as successful. I submit that there are clear reasons why this is so. It's no accident, and it's not a matter of hero-worship, as the Oxfordians insist.**

I might not have the complete historical context of writers that came before Shakespeare, but what I mean is that he was the first popular poet, as in widely popular poet with mass appeal. Perhaps it was the age that he lived in which allowed his work to survive and thrive.

The Beatles analogy is something like this: they did the right thing at the right time, became overwhelmingly popular, and now survive largely due to name recognition, even though musicians that are far superior are basically obscure and penniless.

Shakespeare was a master, no doubt about that, but to me his work surviving and thriving even in the 21st century is largely because of name recognition and inertia. Honestly? I've watched Shakespeare plays where I have no idea what the hell is going on most of the time. In high school they teach teenagers Shakespeare who couldn't be reading anything less relevant to them. When you really look at it, it's a bit of a joke. A number of his plays are definitely masterpieces, but I think many people continue in their fandom of him because we're all supposed to like Shakespeare, right!?. It signals that we're in the know.

But I can tell you I've read Shakespeare's poetry, and Cohen's final major publication, and on a desert Island I'd take Cohen's work a thousand times over. It's just more timely and relevant.

 

[WAB]

but what I mean is that he was the first popular poet...

Not hardly.

Homer and Virgil were "popular" many, many centuries before Shakespeare.

To reiterate, Shakespeare wrote in a time that was teeming with literary people, poets, dramatists, writers of all kinds. He is FAR from the first popular poet, by at the very least two millennia.

rousseau, it's perfectly okay that you prefer Cohen to Shakespeare! I am sorry if I have appeared to believe otherwise.

The greatest sheer joy I've gotten from any book of poetry is a tie between:

E.E. Cummings, Complete Poems
Sylvia Plath, Collected Poems
and Derek Walcott's Collected Poems

Those are all three mostly contemporary poets.

And don't even let me get into Richard Wilbur, Seamus Heaney, Geoffrey Hill, or the immaculate Anthony Hecht. All modern.(Read: 20C)

Shakespeare is still relevant to modern society. Notice the films made from his works which put them in modern times. If you watch Coriolanus, it's set in modern day. The dialogue is not tampered with much at all. But it works magnificently. The words and the beauty of language CANNOT fail.

You wrote (sorry just remembered):

A number of his plays are definitely masterpieces, but I think many people continue in their fandom of him because we're all supposed to like Shakespeare, right!?. It signals that we're in the know.


That is no doubt true. But despite that sad reality there are good reasons why Shakespeare was popular in his (her) day, as well as why his (her) work has survived for so long: it is clearly superior to the rest.

 

[Bronzeage]

Thinking and spit-balling here for no other reason than to kill time. Writing and incentives.

incentive - a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something

I don't know a lot of about Shakespeare, but presumably he had a major incentive to write in the way that he did: he made a living from it. His style that emerged might have been a consequence of what would sell, so to speak. He could make money by being an extraordinary writer, so he became an extraordinary writer.

Contrast to Leonard Cohen as poet ca late 50s and early 60s. He followed his passion as a writer and ended up starving. When he finally figured out how to monetize his art it came in the form of songwriting, and the fact that he was even able to accomplish that was a rare chance in the universe.

Not to inject myself into this conversation, but as for my own writing I lose money by writing poetry, I'm actually disincentivized to write, or be public with it. Every month I spend writing is another month I'm not upskilling my software ability and making myself more sell-able on the job market. Every ounce of publicity I gain is another person wondering why the hell I write poetry.

And the publishing market today is like a lottery, who knows what will sell, and what does sell isn't often what we'd call art. Do any books of poetry really make any money these days?

Some food for thought.

I can't imagine any book of poetry making money at any time since invention of the offset printing press. There's little difference in a poem and song lyrics, and as you said, that's where the poetic money is found.

There was probably a more lucrative market for poetry in the times when it was the major form of entertainment. It's just our poor luck that as technology improved to allow poetry to reach beyond the sound of oe poet's voice, it also brought us the mass market, where poetry competes with the world for attention.

 

[rousseau]

Homer and Virgil were "popular" thousands of years before Shakespeare.

To reiterate, Shakespeare wrote in a time that was teeming with literary people, poets, dramatists, writers of all kinds. He is FAR from the first popular poet, by at the very least two millenia.

Right, I'm mainly constraining the conversation to the modern era - writers that are still largely in scope now. There may be a historical precedent that I'm not aware of, but I believe in our current age Shakespeare is the earliest writer that has major cultural relevance.

So to tie this back to the original point, I think there is a tendency to deify Shakespeare, and underrate 20th century poets who were forced to do something new. Shakespeare was one of history's greatest writers, but I don't find myself impressed by him to the extent that I think he's unmatched. I just believe he lived in an age and place where he had a market for his writing. A market that doesn't exist anymore.

 

[WAB]

Homer and Virgil were "popular" thousands of years before Shakespeare.

To reiterate, Shakespeare wrote in a time that was teeming with literary people, poets, dramatists, writers of all kinds. He is FAR from the first popular poet, by at the very least two millenia.

Right, I'm mainly constraining the conversation to the modern era - writers that are still largely in scope now. There may be a historical precedent that I'm not aware of, but I believe in our current age Shakespeare is the earliest writer that has major cultural relevance.

So to tie this back to the original point, I think there is a tendency to deify Shakespeare, and underrate 20th century poets who were forced to do something new. Shakespeare was one of history's greatest writers, but I don't find myself impressed by him to the extent that I think he's unmatched. I just believe he lived in an age and place where he had a market for his writing. A market that doesn't exist anymore.

First, as for that market not existing: I already pointed out (and which is hardly an item of arcane knowledge) that Shakespeare's plays are still popular today and are performed all over the world. There is not only a market for it, but a thriving market, in which there is fierce competition. Films are made of his plays. Some of the lesser Elizabethan's have plays that are occasionally performed, and poems that are still in the schoolbooks and anthologies.

You also wrote:

Continued next post, since I posted this prematurely...

 

[rousseau]

Thinking and spit-balling here for no other reason than to kill time. Writing and incentives.

incentive - a thing that motivates or encourages one to do something

I don't know a lot of about Shakespeare, but presumably he had a major incentive to write in the way that he did: he made a living from it. His style that emerged might have been a consequence of what would sell, so to speak. He could make money by being an extraordinary writer, so he became an extraordinary writer.

Contrast to Leonard Cohen as poet ca late 50s and early 60s. He followed his passion as a writer and ended up starving. When he finally figured out how to monetize his art it came in the form of songwriting, and the fact that he was even able to accomplish that was a rare chance in the universe.

Not to inject myself into this conversation, but as for my own writing I lose money by writing poetry, I'm actually disincentivized to write, or be public with it. Every month I spend writing is another month I'm not upskilling my software ability and making myself more sell-able on the job market. Every ounce of publicity I gain is another person wondering why the hell I write poetry.

And the publishing market today is like a lottery, who knows what will sell, and what does sell isn't often what we'd call art. Do any books of poetry really make any money these days?

Some food for thought.

I can't imagine any book of poetry making money at any time since invention of the offset printing press. There's little difference in a poem and song lyrics, and as you said, that's where the poetic money is found.

There was probably a more lucrative market for poetry in the times when it was the major form of entertainment. It's just our poor luck that as technology improved to allow poetry to reach beyond the sound of oe poet's voice, it also brought us the mass market, where poetry competes with the world for attention.

This is a good point. There even seemed to be a bit of a bump up until the mid-twentieth century when TV became popular. Now it's a lost cause.

 

[WAB]

Homer and Virgil were "popular" thousands of years before Shakespeare.

To reiterate, Shakespeare wrote in a time that was teeming with literary people, poets, dramatists, writers of all kinds. He is FAR from the first popular poet, by at the very least two millenia.

Right, I'm mainly constraining the conversation to the modern era - writers that are still largely in scope now. There may be a historical precedent that I'm not aware of, but I believe in our current age Shakespeare is the earliest writer that has major cultural relevance.

So to tie this back to the original point, I think there is a tendency to deify Shakespeare, and underrate 20th century poets who were forced to do something new. Shakespeare was one of history's greatest writers, but I don't find myself impressed by him to the extent that I think he's unmatched. I just believe he lived in an age and place where he had a market for his writing. A market that doesn't exist anymore.

First, as for that market not existing: I already pointed out (and which is hardly an item of arcane knowledge) that Shakespeare's plays are still popular today and are performed all over the world. There is not only a market for it, but a thriving market, in which there is fierce competition. Films are made of his plays. Some of the lesser Elizabethan's have plays that are occasionally performed, and poems that are still in the schoolbooks and anthologies.

You also wrote:

Continued next post, since I posted this prematurely...

I think there is a tendency to deify Shakespeare, and underrate 20th century poets who were forced to do something new:

Well, I certainly have not underrrated 20th century poets. Some of my favorite poets were born close to or after 1900:

Pound, Eliot, Stevens, Masters, Frost, Robinson, McCleish, Cummings, Ransom, H.D., Williams, Reznikoff, Lowell, Berryman, Jarrell, Brodsky, Walcott, Wilbur, Hecht, Plath, Sexton, Hill, etc....etc... I could add another hundred names.

The need to "do something new" started long before the 20th Century. Free verse has roots that go back to Christopher Smart, who wrote (arguably) the first "free verse" poem in English, Jubilate Agno, penned between 1759 and 1963:

https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/45173/jubilate-agno

there was also William Blake's The Argument of Heaven and Hell (1790-1793):

THE ARGUMENT

Rintrah roars & shakes his fires in the burden’d air;
Hungry clouds swag on the deep.

Once meek, and in a perilous path,
The just man kept his course along
The vale of death.
Roses are planted where thorns grow,
And on the barren heath
Sing the honey bees.

Then the perilous path was planted:
And a river and a spring
On every cliff and tomb:
And on the bleached bones
Red clay brought forth.

Till the villain left the paths of ease,
To walk in perilous paths, and drive
The just man into barren climes.

Now the sneaking serpent walks
In mild humility,
And the just man rages in the wilds
Where lions roam.

Rintrah roars & shakes his fires in the burden’d air;
Hungry clouds swag on the deep.

http://www.thecultureclub.net/2006/...free-verse-in-the-marriage-of-heaven-and-hell

And of course don't forget Walt Whitman, who is probably the grandfather of free verse. He was active in the 19th century.

Poets were changing and innovating the art of poetry from time immemorial. Shakespeare was just one person among an almost countless number of people who have written and sought literary success through the ages. The craft of poetry changed from Virgil's time to Shakespeare's, and it changed from Shakespeare's time until now.

I love modern poetry! At least some of it.

I love rhyme and meter, but a third of my stuff is in free verse.

I have probably read as much free verse as metrical verse.

 

[rousseau]

Homer and Virgil were "popular" thousands of years before Shakespeare.

To reiterate, Shakespeare wrote in a time that was teeming with literary people, poets, dramatists, writers of all kinds. He is FAR from the first popular poet, by at the very least two millenia.

Right, I'm mainly constraining the conversation to the modern era - writers that are still largely in scope now. There may be a historical precedent that I'm not aware of, but I believe in our current age Shakespeare is the earliest writer that has major cultural relevance.

So to tie this back to the original point, I think there is a tendency to deify Shakespeare, and underrate 20th century poets who were forced to do something new. Shakespeare was one of history's greatest writers, but I don't find myself impressed by him to the extent that I think he's unmatched. I just believe he lived in an age and place where he had a market for his writing. A market that doesn't exist anymore.

First, as for that market not existing: I already pointed out (and which is hardly an item of arcane knowledge) that Shakespeare's plays are still popular today and are performed all over the world. There is not only a market for it, but a thriving market, in which there is fierce competition. Films are made of his plays. Some of the lesser Elizabethan's have plays that are occasionally performed, and poems that are still in the schoolbooks and anthologies.

You also wrote:

Continued next post, since I posted this prematurely...

I think that's part and parcel to what I'm saying. Shakespeare lived in a time when theatre was a major form of entertainment, so he was able to gain name recognition. If someone wanted to reach the same status in 2021, how would they even consider doing that? In the past 75 years Leonard Cohen is the closest analogy I can think of, and he gained fame through music.

Going back to The Beatles analogy: the music industry is near dominated by acts that were active in the early days of pop music, and now it's near impossible to make money in music without a strike of luck. I can see absolutely fabulous musicians in small venues for 20 bucks.

So to go back to the original point - I think Shakespeare is very good, I just don't revere him to the same magnitude that world culture does. I think a lot of it is name recognition and lack of awareness of other great writers.

 

[WAB]

First, as for that market not existing: I already pointed out (and which is hardly an item of arcane knowledge) that Shakespeare's plays are still popular today and are performed all over the world. There is not only a market for it, but a thriving market, in which there is fierce competition. Films are made of his plays. Some of the lesser Elizabethan's have plays that are occasionally performed, and poems that are still in the schoolbooks and anthologies.

You also wrote:

Continued next post, since I posted this prematurely...

I think that's part and parcel to what I'm saying. Shakespeare lived in a time when theatre was a major form of entertainment, so he was able to gain name recognition..

Okay. But why weren't the rest of these playwrights (all contemporaries of Shakespeare, and not nearly all of them, only the only ones who made the list, which means they had at least some claim to fame) touted and praised as much as Shakespeare? What happened?

Going back to The Beatles analogy: the music industry is near dominated by acts that were active in the early days of pop music, and now it's near impossible to make money in music without a strike of luck. I can see absolutely fabulous musicians in small venues for 20 bucks.

I agree that it's nearly impossible to make money in modern music, but that doesn't take away from the Beatles' dominance during their time. There were literally thousands of bands trying to make it. The Beatles succeeded and became iconic because they were simply better than the rest, usually by leaps and bounds. Of course this is subjective, and arguable. Have you listened to music recorded by the plethora of Beatles wannabes in the late sixties/early seventies? Most of it is dreadful.

So to go back to the original point - I think Shakespeare is very good, I just don't revere him to the same magnitude that world culture does. I think a lot of it is name recognition and lack of awareness of other great writers.

I have no problem that you don't revere Shakespeare. Lots of people have come out as being not too favorable in regard to him (her). Just like lots of people don't care for the Beatles (Stephen King thinks they are highly over-rated). Same true with Led Zeppelin, and more so: to a good many people Zeppelin sucked.

I personally do not suffer from lack of awareness of other writers, though I admit you have a good point.

I don't love Shakespeare because of his fame. I have read every play, the poems, and the sonnets. I do not think any writer in English, past or present, came even close to his mastery of English verse.

Note: I DO NOT think Shakespeare is world famous because he was a great playwright; rather, I believe his status depends on the fact that no other poet in English was as superlative as he was.

All OPINION - means nothing.

Nothing.