Quote:
Originally Posted by SpiderMatt
I haven't read the whole thread, so forgive me for not following the full conversation, but it seems to me that the critics here are focusing on the wrong criteria for "great literature." Literature is remembered for its influence. Great literature survives the "test of time" ...
|
That's certainly another perspective to approach the issue from. However, one ought note, it is a perspective that does not discount the possibility of Shakespeare having being a talentless hack of a writer, objectively speaking.
Because, of course, as easily as you brought up the Beatles or Elvis, you could have chosen Britney Spears or The Hanson Brothers instead. Which, based on his writing, Tolstoy might find a more apt comparison.
Essentially I think your line of thinking is sensible enough, but do not feel your conclusion naturally follows.
On a personal level though, I do think that if it weren't for the Britain's fortunes as a nation/country and the British Empire and its successor nations, Shakespeare today probably would not be greatly better known outside of the UK as the most brilliant writers of Kyrgyz, Chuvash, or Moldovan literature.
In other words, I think part of Shakespeare's greatness is due to the fact that his kinsmen's descendants spread across half the world.
- Ahi