William Shakespeare was the greatest English-language writer of all time. I know this because everyone says so. Heck, I even read some Shakespeare back in high school. The hitch is simple–I don’t get it. Sure, Willy’s plays are timeless tales of love and revenge and whatnot. Lots of people die in them. These attributes are found all over the place, though. What makes Shakespeare’s work so much better literature than Tom Clancy’s? –Mark, Pasadena, California
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
Shakespeare versus Tom Clancy, eh? I admire you, Mark. You’re a bozo, but you’re a bozo with brass. What’s more, you raise a question that deserves an answer. Fact is, neglecting the handful of fey creatures who claim they grokked Shakespeare upon first hearing “to be or not to be,” few people get him right out of the box. The obstacle is his lofty language, much of which can only be grasped with footnotes, and sometimes not then. Because lofty language is also Shakespeare’s chief claim to glory–I agree, timeless tales and whatnot are a dime a dozen–we’ve got a problem. I don’t promise miracles, but if you’re willing to invest a few hours in a guy whose reputation has endured for more than 400 years, maybe you’ll get a glimpse of what makes Willy worth lending an ear.
So am I claiming Shakespeare’s a fraud? No, only that it can take some work to get past the sticky bits. My epiphany happened during my freshman year in college, when I took an introductory lit class with one of the great teachers, a fellow named Bergen Evans. One day Evans was lecturing on King Lear. After some buildup about the sense of despair in this play, he read the famous lines: “As flies to wanton boys, are we to the gods; they kill us for their sport.” The last few words were said with a sort of quiet hiss. I suppose you had to be there. All I know is, I didn’t question Shakespeare’s genius after that.
