Forgive my cultural illiteracy, but what was so special about William Shakespeare? Other people wrote plays and sonnets. Yet for some reason Shakespeare is always assumed to be the best. Why? What was so unique about his works?
Thank you in advance to all who reply 
Well, “unique” is a strong word, but here are a few things that, in combination, set him apart from his contemporaries and immediate predecessors.*
He created three-dimensional characters when most English-language playwrights were dealing with stock characters. The title character of Marlowe’s “Jew of Malta” is an irredeemable monster. Shylock in “The Merchant of Venice” has been known to move audience to tears. That’s not to say he didn’t start as a stereotype, and certainly he can and has been played that way, but there’s complexity enough to him that actors, directors, and audiences can come to their own understanding of the character. And he’s the villain! Let’s not even talk about “heroic” characters like, let’s say, Hamlet.
He tended to be very free with verse,** when he used it. Whereas the generation of playwrights immediately preceding him tended to adhere slavishly to the meter, Shakespeare, especially in his later works, came much closer to the rhythms of actual speech. When performed properly, it sounds like people talking, rather than reciting poetry.*** Yet it’s structured enough to give it a power and formality lacking in simple prose.
Finally, he was simply a master at turning a phrase. I’ve read “Dr. Faustus,” arguably Marlowe’s**** masterpiece, and came across a few good lines. The most recent work of Shakespeare I’ve read from beginning to end was “Love’s Labour’s Lost,” definitely one of his minor comedies and least-quoted works, and it seemed to be one beautiful passage after another.
** It’s a common misconception that Shakespeare always wrote in verse. All of his plays are at least partly in prose, sometimes as much as two-thirds.
*** At least that’s the currently popular approach. Some scholars think Shakespeare’s actors would have emphasized the meter and rhyme, but this would sound very sing-songy and artificial to today’s audiences.
**** I don’t mean to pick on Marlowe, who was a genius in his own right. He just happens to be one of Shakespeare’s best known contemporaries and one with whose works I have a passing familiarity.
Amazing playwright that wrote things we’re still talking about today.
His plays were entertaining and smart and popular. It’s like if the New Yorker magazine were the most popular thing for everyone to read.
What’s so special? Nothing. His continuing popularity and resonance is entirely an on-going conspiracy by English teachers and community repetory company directors. See, they get a kick-back from the multi-billion dollar Shakespeare Cabal every time the works are read or performed.
Shhhh. It’s a secret.
Part of the reason people don’t get Shakeapeare is because 1. the language is dated (no one speaks Early Modern English unless they’re doing a play from the period) and 2. Shakepeare’s influence has so permeiated English literature that you have seen it before.
No one in English has ever combined great stories, memorable characters, great use of language (Shakepeare still is one of the two two or three names in any work of familiar quotations, since his writing is so vivid), and poetry to the degree that Shakepeare has.
Well, his contemporary Marlowe is widely held to be his equal.
I have to agree with the OP. I read “King Lear” and found it to be nothing but a bunch of old phrases and quotes that everybody knows strung together.
I remember hearing (from a Shakespeare scholar David Allen White) that Shakespeare used more different words in his work than any other writer in English. If that is true it would be special.
Milton was number 2.
I’m a fan of the Marlowe WAS Shakespeare theory myself.
I think the factual answer is: “He did it first”.
He might not have originated anything (I think WS did, but anyway…), he might not have been the best poet and playwright, but he was, to use a modern phrase, bankable. Actually, I think the greatness comes from inventing the modern concept of the Box Office, i.e. writing for the masses and especially the peanut gallery. This made him the Jerry Bruckheimer or Joel Silver of his day, which is also why I think Shakespeare in Love is a very good *hommage *to the bard.
Also, he synthesized the 7 (or whatever the number is) basic literary plots and benchmarked them.
You might as well ask What Was So Special About Newton, Copernicus.
There’s at least one legendary author who thought Shakespeare was a total fraud:
The link goes to a lengthy essay by Orwell on (the translation of?) the pamphlet by Tolstoy from where that passage comes. Tolstoy had some interesting ideas on why Shakespeare was so elevated:
It’s worthwhile to read the whole thing.