Shakespeare was certainly not considered a hack by the respected
critics of his day, although some of his contemporaries disparaged him,
perhaps because he was obviously striking out in a new and unique
direction. One need only read his peers to realize how significant his
achievement was. Read the sonnet sequences of Sydney and Spencer, then
read Shakespeare. It's as though someone opened a window and let some
light into the stuffy room of English literature. Or read the other
Elizabethan playwrites: Marlowe, Kyd, Lyly, Joson. Then read
Shakespeare. the plays of the others are generally confused constructs
written by men who, although great in their own right, couldn't even
approach the human insights, poetic voice, or theatrical innovations
that Shakespeare achieved. Yes, every once in a while a third rate
critic who hopes to get his name in the paper disparages the bard or
even attributes his work to someone else. But among true scholars of
English literature, good Will has been revered for four centuries.
On Feb 17, 2004, at 7:40 AM, Chris Stoddart wrote:
William Robb wrote:
Actually, Shakespeare was a second rate hack,
Hmmmm, actually I have to strongly disagree on that one. Not just 'cos
"everyone else says so" either. His prose may be difficult to the
modern ear, but many of his themes are so universally human that they
remain true 400 years later. That alone raises him against much of the
competition, and that's leaving out the massive, unique contribution he
made to the English language. He might have been considered a 'hack'
when
he was alive, but I doubt he was ever seen as second rate.
Chris
