Referencing the recent article Why is William Shakespeare considered the greatest English language writer of all time?
While Shakespeare’s use of language is commendable, it is not solely for his use of language that causes English teachers to require of students that they read his works, nor is is solely his ability to embed deeper meaning in seemingly simple phrases that causes us to put him on top of the pantheon of writers. Unfortunately, the article fails to answer the question asked.
Part of what causes particular authors to be studied has to do with the development of the language at a given time. In this regard, Shakespeare really stands out. Simply comparing what he wrote with what else was written at the time shows why he is taught: not even the talents of playwrights like Marlowe, or poets like Nashe are sufficient to overcome the amazing use of language attributed to Shakespeare. So, to some extent, he was an artist who pushed the boundaries of his art at the time; he wasn’t just producing a contemporary version of Thomas Kincade.
Shakespeare also was able with his writing to convey deep meanings and rich contexts. His sonnets force one to think to understand them; compare the easily read, pleasant, but hardly deep Sonnet 64 from Amoretti by Spenser to the much more deep Sonnet 130 of Shakespeare. His fertile mind was apparently constantly looking for analogies and metaphors to make his points; an example that made me chuckle was the famous beginning to Scene 2 of Act III in King Lear:
Blow, winds, and crack your cheeks!
Which, of course, is intended to bring to mind the typical illustration of the “four winds” on a map of the time as faces in clouds, blowing at the land. Almost all of the writers that are extensively studied in literature have to some degree this ability, which, admittedly, does not make them easy reads. Perhaps the greatest single piece of English literature ever written (in my humble opinion), A Modest Proposal, by Jonathan Swift, is almost never seen gracing the end tables of most houses. Indeed, most who become acquainted with the work find it detestable; they, of course, have utterly failed to pierce the simplist layer of deceit. Small wonder they aren’t then clamouring for a leather-bound edition of Gulliver’s Travels to put on the coffee table.
Influence upon other, later writers is another measure of the greatness of an author. In this, Shakespeare excells beyond most any other English author. So many quotes from his works are at the tips of our tongues, worked into the speeches and writings of the past 400 years. If imitation is, indeed, a form of flattery, then Shakespeare must be considered quite flattered. Admittedly, having 400 years of time in which to be inspirational gives him an advantage over, say, Faulkner. But one cannot deny this aspect of his works.
It is also quite silly to assert that the stories of his plays are not attributable to him, simply because he was reworking older story concepts. Do we see the story of Pyramus and Thisbe endlessly repeated in numerous versions? Was the fact that Shakespeare repackaged the story in Romeo and Juliet enough for us to say that the story of Romeo and Juliet isn’t Shakespeare’s? Do we have any belief that West Side Story would have existed as anything like it was written if Romeo and Juliet hadn’t been written? Frankly, as we are reminded during the current season of “reality” TV shows and endless remakes/sequels in the movie theaters, timeless tales and whatnot are not a dime a dozen.
But perhaps the most important point to make in favor of the assertion that Shakespeare is the greatest English language author is that we continue to read, play, produce, quote, and find relevance in more of his works 400 years after they were written than any other single author the language has produced. Dickens? Bah, a mere wannabe. Tolkein? Hah! A one-hit wonder. Joyce? Hell, he didn’t even USE the English language comprehensibly (ok, I admit, I only bring him up to make a silly joke).
Do we continue to view Shakespeare’s works solely because of some elite that forces them upon us? Hardly. Henry V by Kenneth Branagh was moderately successful as a movie in the United States, where people hardly go to theaters solely at the insistence of some sort of critical elite. Various towns have highly successful Shakespeare festivals, high schools routinely produce Shakespeare plays at the choice of the participants, as much as at the insistence of the drama teacher. Would the average high school student simply pick up Othello and start thumbing through the pages? No, of course not, but the typical high school student these days doesn’t even pick up most any book more complicated than a collection of jokes from The Simpsons, preferring almost anything visual. If that were the measure of greatness, then not even Tom Clancy would be getting any help.
In the end, Shakespeare was great for numerous reasons, reasons we have difficulty applying to any other single author. To some extent, comparing Shakespeare with, say, Dickens is apples and oranges; the result of your question will depend upon your definition. Still in making a case for Shakespeare, one should do more than point out a couple measly examples of his wit in action and say, “See?”
