What is so good about Shakespeare?

[Gori the Grey]

You're worried about turning us off? I thought you declined Mr. NoFuzzycuffs?

Remember, there are 50 shades of Gori. Some of his shades don't want to turn people on; some of his shades don't want to turn people off.

I am large. I contain multitudes.

But this gives me a pretext, without lengthening my previous post, to say one or two more things to Mise. You rightly suspect that the value of Shakespeare is going to lie in his language rather than his plots. Yeah, the plot of Much Ado has about the value of an Adam Sandler rom com. Shakespeare didn't care about plots. He knew plots didn't matter. He borrowed his plots Willy-nilly. (He's a master plotter, though; maybe we'll get to that.)

And don't worry, yet, about your knowledge of the human condition expanding. That may come in time. But let's not make it a standard from the outset, any more than that Adam Sandler movie.

For now you report finding it accessible. That's enough. (In fact, I regard your watching it as a victory.)

 

[Borachio]

I reckon you're a committee, Mr Grey. Or should that be Messrs Greys?

 

[Gori the Grey]

The problems come when there's a 25-25 tie. How much simpler my life might have been had there been 49 shades of Gori, or 51.

By the way, Mr. B., you rightly note that we have to be on our guard against acting or coming off as priests, inviting Mise (and warpus soon I hope) into the mysteries of Shakespeare. The second Mise indicates that that metaphor feels apt to him, Pangur wins the debate between us.

For now, I hope we've just operated as enthusiasts, sharing what we like about a movie we once watched.

 

[Farm Boy]

Remember, there are 50 shades of Gori. Some of his shades don't want to turn people on; some of his shades don't want to turn people off.

I am large. I contain multitudes.

Well, I hope ya'll get tested regularly. It only takes one.

 

[Mise]

Illegitimacy doesn't matter much nowadays, but back in Tudor times, it mattered a lot to the nobles and royalty of Europe. It was just an accepted thing that children born to lawfully married couples were better and more deserving, both in material comforts and in terms of honor, social status, and friendship than children born to unmarried people. So yeah, Don John was a bastard both in terms of his birth and his personality. He was jealous of his half-brother, and apt to take any opportunity to ruin other peoples' happiness, just for the hell of it. Some people are like that - not happy until they've made everyone else miserable.

Yeah I realise that. He's a bastard, bastards in those days were universally recognised to have certain stereotypes and character traits. It's a cheap, quick way of generating a character's backstory and motivations without actually having to come up with it yourself. These days we'd call it a "trope" and say it was hackneyed and derivative; it's just lazy characterisation.

It seems an extreme reaction to modern audiences, but Hero's honor was besmirched in a despicable way, and shock is not an inappropriate reaction.

But to literally die of shock? That seems wildly fanciful.

No. I wouldn't say the "book" is better than the film!

In fact, Branagh's version is pretty close to the original script. Except that there's no balcony scene in the original. I'm not sure why Branagh had to telegraph it like that, tbh.

But what about the Benedict and Beatrice set-up? Isn't that the central plot of the film? Two people who, unknown to themselves, love each other, and have to be tricked into admitting it? Hero and Claudio are just a side-show. With don John a long way third.

Was that the main plot? I didn't realise that. I thought it was a pretty solid subplot, but could have been done with a little less silliness all round. I know it's a comedy but again, this is Adam Sandler/Seinfeld level story writing, rather than something worthy of Shakespeare's reputation.

When I say Shakespeare is accessible, this is all I mean: that when even a 21C audience views one of his plays, they can--with all of the help that the actor's inflections, and body language and stage interaction (and as you point out music, etc.)--follow the plot.

Okay, well, what I mean by accessible is far broader and wider ranging than this. You're talking about the accessibility from a linguistic POV, which suits your argument about Shakespeare's linguistic credentials. I'm talking about the accessibility from a wider cultural POV, which suits my argument about Shakespeare's place in our society.

I'm glad, further, that you report feeling as though you understand 25% of his language, but not feeling like you understand it in its full linguistic glory. I have a pet theory that S's original audience would have understood about 25% of the language of one of his plays on their first viewing of a play. My analogy is really intricate rap lyrics. Who expects to be able to take in really intricate rap lyrics on a first listen? You walk away with the gist of the song (my b**** has a really big a**, or Imma pop a cap in your a** or whatever), but you have to listen to it again and again before you can unscramble all of what is being said so as to understand it in all of its linguistic glory.

It's that full level of understanding that I think you have in mind when you say Shakespeare is inaccessible to swathes of people and Pangur has in mind when he speaks of the hidden meanings of which lit profs are mystery-cult-like custodians.

Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to unpack some instances of S’s full linguistic glory, but for now we won’t feel the play was inaccessible just because you didn’t take in its full linguistic glory on a first listen, agreed? No one can be expected to do that. (If they could, why would they come back to the theatre next week for a second listen?)

No, I won't agree with that. I don't agree that nobody can be expected to understand 100% of the words in a film or text in a book on first viewing/reading. I have watched countless films in which every single word is spoken clearly and in a language I can readily understand. I have read countless texts without having to read them a second time. I don't accept that nobody can be expected to understand 100% of the words being said or written down on first reading. If I had to re-read your post 10 times before I could understand 100% of the words in it, I would conclude not that you were a Genius who could only be comprehended after several hours' conscious effort, but that you were a bad writer. (Thankfully you are an excellent writer.) I don't think it is unreasonable to conclude that if I watch a film and only understand 25% of the words spoken, that the film is less accessible than one that I can understand 100% of on first viewing.

Secondly, I think that rap is inaccessible to vast swathes of the population too. It doesn't serve the same purpose in society as Shakespeare does, but it too, like many subcultures and artforms, trades to a certain extent in an exclusivity and authenticity that precludes adoption by certain subsets of society. Again, this is not a criticism of rap as an artform, nor its artistic merit; it is a comment on rap's place in society and in our culture.

 

[Gori the Grey]

If I had to re-read your post 10 times before I could understand 100% of the words in it, I would conclude not that you were a Genius who could only be comprehended after several hours' conscious effort, but that you were a bad writer.

It will take some time to work something up, but remember you asked for it.

But, more substantially, for the nonce:

I don't agree that nobody can be expected to understand 100% of the words in a film or text in a book on first viewing/reading. I have watched countless films in which every single word is spoken clearly and in a language I can readily understand. I have read countless texts without having to read them a second time. I don't accept that nobody can be expected to understand 100% of the words being said or written down on first reading.
.

I’m not saying “nobody can be expected to understand 100% of the words in a film or text in a book on a first reading” I’m saying I don’t think anyone, including his original audience, understood 100% of the words in Shakespeare. I’m saying that I think this is the special (though not utterly unique) way in which Shakespeare specifically operates as a verbal artist: he lets one get the gist of his passages, but overwhelms one's processing capacities at the lexical level.

(Texts, incidentally, don’t really count, because you control the pace, pausing or quick reading back as needed. S’s artistry works partly because it’s in a medium that keeps rolling on, whether you can keep up or not. And modern films don’t count because there dialog is generally intended to be transparent.)

And I’m not talking about the place of rap in our culture, or its accessibility (in your sense, yet, but be patient); I’m talking just about its linguistic accessibility, its comprehensibility. Are you someone who listens to rap? If the answer is “not too much,” would you do me another favor? (You’ve already been very obliging). Would you listen to Eminem’s Rap God and tell me what percentage of it you feel you pick up on in a first listen. If it’s already a piece you know, I’ll have to find another that you don’t know in order to do this test. It has to be one you're coming to for the first time.

By the way, I suspect there's a reason why the one character's name you remembered was Claudio. Can you think back over the plau and say why thst name may have stuck in yout mind?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

But to literally die of shock? That seems wildly fanciful.

Consider it the Shakespearean version of an 18th-19th-century heroine's swoon.

 

[Borachio]

I think the three central comedies of Much Ado, Twelfth Night, and As You Like It are the most easily accessible of Shakespeare's canon.

Each of them is wildly and bizarrely fanciful in its own unique way. And each of them is uniquely flawed.

Maybe Mise and others are right: perhaps it's time to put Early Modern theatre firmly in the past where it belongs (if that's what they're saying).

But while it remains as popular as it is I don't think that will happen any time soon. Even if its popularity is really pretentiousness.

 

[Mise]

It will take some time to work something up, but remember you asked for it.

But, more substantially, for the nonce:



I’m not saying “nobody can be expected to understand 100% of the words in a film or text in a book on a first reading” I’m saying I don’t think anyone, including his original audience, understood 100% of the words in Shakespeare. I’m saying that I think this is the special (though not utterly unique) way in which Shakespeare specifically operates as a verbal artist: he lets one get the gist of his passages, but overwhelms one's processing capacities at the lexical level.

(Texts, incidentally, don’t really count, because you control the pace, pausing or quick reading back as needed. S’s artistry works partly because it’s in a medium that keeps rolling on, whether you can keep up or not. And modern films don’t count because there dialog is generally intended to be transparent.)

And I’m not talking about the place of rap in our culture, or its accessibility (in your sense, yet, but be patient); I’m talking just about its linguistic accessibility, its comprehensibility. Are you someone who listens to rap? If the answer is “not too much,” would you do me another favor? (You’ve already been very obliging). Would you listen to Eminem’s Rap God and tell me what percentage of it you feel you pick up on in a first listen. If it’s already a piece you know, I’ll have to find another that you don’t know in order to do this test. It has to be one you're coming to for the first time.

I don't listen to rap but I don't see how any of this discounts what I've been saying. I suppose you'll tell me in due course, but right now, I completely disagree that Shakespeare is accessible because I understood 25% of the words and got the gist of the plot. That seems like a ludicrously low bar to set for "accessibility". If this is what you mean when you say that something is accessible, and if this is a premise upon which you base your argument, then it is no wonder that we disagree.

Something that you can only understand 25% of on first reading is inaccessible. Something that you can understand 100% of on first reading is accessible. What about this is controversial?

Incidentally, I don't think your argument even requires Shakespeare to be accessible. You can just say "no, it's not accessible, but the 75% that is inaccessible is where the artistic merit is found; it is in this 75% that Shakespeare's hype is deserved". Then it's an argument about whether those who think that Shakespeare's admirers are "cultish" are missing something that is there, or whether the members of Shakespeare's cult are seeing something that isn't there. Which would be a much more difficult argument for me to have personally, being as I'm naturally starting from a position of ignorance. I would have to retreat and insist that we talk about the role that Shakespeare actually, in reality, plays in our society, rather than some hypothetical way (e.g. I admit that it is possible for Shakespeare to deserve the hype that he actually receives now [a modal statement], but the actual hype he receives is from something else - snobbery, elitism, etc [a weaker proposition than I started with]).

I'm much more comfortable where we are right now, where we're just arguing over whether Shakespeare is inaccessible.

By the way, I suspect there's a reason why the one character's name you remembered was Claudio. Can you think back over the plau and say why thst name may have stuck in yout mind?

It wasn't the only name I remembered, it was just the only name that I felt I needed to clarify as I'm not sure everyone would understand why I called him Wilson. I have no idea why I remember Claudio and not Lord Blackguy, nor why I remember Hero and Beatrice but not Evil Keanu. I would assume it's because the latter are played by much more famous actors, so their real names stuck in my head more than their characters' names. But I remember Kate Beckinsale's character's name, even though I mentally referred to her throughout as Kate Beckinsale, and Claudio's character's name, even though I mentally referred to him throughout as Wilson.

@Borachio: Well, the reason I kept referring to the actors' names in my post rather than the characters, and why I referred to tropes and the dog with shifty eyes, is because I'm reviewing this as if I were reviewing a modern film. And it is a modern film. It's a film made in 1993 and watched in 2014. Shakespeare may have been really creative and original in storytelling 400 years ago, but now it seems dated and absurd. So why are we expected to continue to revere him and read/watch his plays? MAAN was a really bad example of storytelling and characterisation; why are schoolchildren still taught about it? There are countless films, plays, TV programmes, novels, radio plays and short stories that are orders of magnitude better than MAAN. Why, then, does Shakespeare deserve the hype? Hamlet had a lot of really silly moments too, like *spoiler alert* Ophelia's suicide -- it seems completely unbelievable, and was just thrown in there to advance the plot.

These are all things I would say about a modern film if I were reviewing it; but when I say it about *gasp* Shakespeare, it sounds ridiculous. And people start pointing out all the things I've missed that make it not totally illogical, they point out the other characters that were actually pretty good, they point out that, in Shakespeare's time, it was a common trope of the genre for women to have bouts of hysteria and commit suicide (or whatever). None of those things make the play better though, and if we're judging it solely on artistic merit, and by the same standards that we judge all art, then it falls down in pretty crippling ways.

This is not to say that Shakespeare shouldn't be revered in some form. I think it's right to laud him for his impact on culture and the English language, for advancing the art form and for providing base stories and characters that future writers would develop into more well rounded, well written stories and characters for centuries to come. But to laud him on artistic merit? Well, that requires us to delve into the 75% of Shakespeare's language that is inaccessible. And to do that requires the kind of investment of time and effort that excludes vast swathes of the population. It leads to overcompensation, too, and the exclusivity breeds snobbery, elitism, and "cultish" behaviour. It opens Shakespeare -- or rather, his cult -- up to the criticism that I, Pangur and others have made.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I don't listen to rap but I don't see how any of this discounts what I've been saying. I suppose you'll tell me in due course, but right now, I completely disagree that Shakespeare is accessible because I understood 25% of the words and got the gist of the plot. That seems like a ludicrously low bar to set for "accessibility". If this is what you mean when you say that something is accessible, and if this is a premise upon which you base your argument, then it is no wonder that we disagree.

Something that you can only understand 25% of on first reading is inaccessible. Something that you can understand 100% of on first reading is accessible. What about this is controversial?

Incidentally, I don't think your argument even requires Shakespeare to be accessible. You can just say "no, it's not accessible, but the 75% that is inaccessible is where the artistic merit is found; it is in this 75% that Shakespeare's hype is deserved". Then it's an argument about whether those who think that Shakespeare's admirers are "cultish" are missing something that is there, or whether the members of Shakespeare's cult are seeing something that isn't there. Which would be a much more difficult argument for me to have personally, being as I'm naturally starting from a position of ignorance. I would have to retreat and insist that we talk about the role that Shakespeare actually, in reality, plays in our society, rather than some hypothetical way (e.g. I admit that it is possible for Shakespeare to deserve the hype that he actually receives now [a modal statement], but the actual hype he receives is from something else - snobbery, elitism, etc [a weaker proposition than I started with]).

I'm much more comfortable where we are right now, where we're just arguing over whether Shakespeare is inaccessible.


It wasn't the only name I remembered, it was just the only name that I felt I needed to clarify as I'm not sure everyone would understand why I called him Wilson. I have no idea why I remember Claudio and not Lord Blackguy, nor why I remember Hero and Beatrice but not Evil Keanu. I would assume it's because the latter are played by much more famous actors, so their real names stuck in my head more than their characters' names. But I remember Kate Beckinsale's character's name, even though I mentally referred to her throughout as Kate Beckinsale, and Claudio's character's name, even though I mentally referred to him throughout as Wilson.

@Borachio: Well, the reason I kept referring to the actors' names in my post rather than the characters, and why I referred to tropes and the dog with shifty eyes, is because I'm reviewing this as if I were reviewing a modern film. And it is a modern film. It's a film made in 1993 and watched in 2014. Shakespeare may have been really creative and original in storytelling 400 years ago, but now it seems dated and absurd. So why are we expected to continue to revere him and read/watch his plays? MAAN was a really bad example of storytelling and characterisation; why are schoolchildren still taught about it? There are countless films, plays, TV programmes, novels, radio plays and short stories that are orders of magnitude better than MAAN. Why, then, does Shakespeare deserve the hype? Hamlet had a lot of really silly moments too, like *spoiler alert* Ophelia's suicide -- it seems completely unbelievable, and was just thrown in there to advance the plot.

These are all things I would say about a modern film if I were reviewing it; but when I say it about *gasp* Shakespeare, it sounds ridiculous. And people start pointing out all the things I've missed that make it not totally illogical, they point out the other characters that were actually pretty good, they point out that, in Shakespeare's time, it was a common trope of the genre for women to have bouts of hysteria and commit suicide (or whatever). None of those things make the play better though, and if we're judging it solely on artistic merit, and by the same standards that we judge all art, then it falls down in pretty crippling ways.

This is not to say that Shakespeare shouldn't be revered in some form. I think it's right to laud him for his impact on culture and the English language, for advancing the art form and for providing base stories and characters that future writers would develop into more well rounded, well written stories and characters for centuries to come. But to laud him on artistic merit? Well, that requires us to delve into the 75% of Shakespeare's language that is inaccessible. And to do that requires the kind of investment of time and effort that excludes vast swathes of the population. It leads to overcompensation, too, and the exclusivity breeds snobbery, elitism, and "cultish" behaviour. It opens Shakespeare -- or rather, his cult -- up to the criticism that I, Pangur and others have made.

THERE IS NO CULT OF SHAKESPEARE. HE IS NOT A RELIGIOUS FIGURE AND WE DO NOT WORSHIP HIM.



There are no "Shakespeare compounds" where people are brainwashed into becoming "believers." Please stop using the word "cult." It's inaccurate, and to me, offensive.


You might want to consider using the word "fan." I am an unapologetic, enthusiastic fan of Shakespeare's writing.


By "Lord Blackguy" I assume you mean Denzel Washington's character, Don Pedro of Aragon?

 

[Mise]

I mean Denzel, yeah. Don Pedro I guess - I don't remember hearing that name at all.

I'm sorry that you are offended by me calling it a cult, but I'm going to continue calling it a cult as I see no reason not to.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/cult

6. An exclusive group of persons sharing an esoteric, usually artistic or intellectual interest.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Do keep in mind, though, that if you are a great enough oral bard, a civilization will invent an alphabet to record your literary works!

Sadly, no. The emergence of alphabets has nothing to do with that sort of thing.

I'm glad, further, that you report feeling as though you understand 25% of his language, but not feeling like you understand it in its full linguistic glory. I have a pet theory that S's original audience would have understood about 25% of the language of one of his plays on their first viewing of a play. My analogy is really intricate rap lyrics. Who expects to be able to take in really intricate rap lyrics on a first listen? You walk away with the gist of the song (my b**** has a really big a**, or Imma pop a cap in your a** or whatever), but you have to listen to it again and again before you can unscramble all of what is being said so as to understand it in all of its linguistic glory.

It's that full level of understanding that I think you have in mind when you say Shakespeare is inaccessible to swathes of people and Pangur has in mind when he speaks of the hidden meanings of which lit profs are mystery-cult-like custodians.

Hopefully, we’ll get a chance to unpack some instances of S’s full linguistic glory, but for now we won’t feel the play was inaccessible just because you didn’t take in its full linguistic glory on a first listen, agreed? No one can be expected to do that. (If they could, why would they come back to the theatre next week for a second listen?)

What I’m saying is that I think S’s plays are linguistically super-charged, deliberately so, and that the response it invites is, on a first viewing, to let it just flow over us, to enjoy the surplus of meaning as a surplus, then, on future viewings, to take in more and more.

Enough for one post. If forum posts get too lengthy, they turn off the tl;dr crowd. But I'll have more to say, and ask, while your experience is relatively fresh.

Shakespeare isn't hard to understand because of some mysterious greatness in his language, but because he wrote 4 centuries ago in what has essentially become a different language.

Honestly, this insistence of 'popularizing' Shakespeare by keeping him in such a language does draw parallels with the Qur'an and Latin Bible. Medieval Romance-speaking Christians (and their cultural dependents) and Modern Arab Muslims (and their dependents) insist that these texts can only be 'properly' understood by the masses by the latter learning Latin and Classical Arabic. This heightens the mystery of the Word, necessitates a class of 'expert' interpreters, and shields it from popular interrogation ... something that serves a certain group more than the 'masses. And of course, it is difficult for the masses to believe God is talking to them if He sounds like their buddies ... but if He talks in a way that only bits can be understood ... well, that IS what He should sound like.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I mean Denzel, yeah. Don Pedro I guess - I don't remember hearing that name at all.

I'm sorry that you are offended by me calling it a cult, but I'm going to continue calling it a cult as I see no reason not to.

He was introduced as Don Pedro, a prince of Aragon, within the first 15 minutes.

Scientology is a cult. The Moonies are a cult. David Koresh and Jim Jones presided over cults. It's insulting to put Shakespeare fans in such company.

And we're hardly exclusive. Several of us in this thread have been encouraging people to give Shakespeare a try, so we're clearly not trying to keep people out.

 

[Tahuti]

Scientology is a cult. The Moonies are a cult. David Koresh and Jim Jones presided over cults. It's insulting to put Shakespeare fans in such company.

"Cult" in the sense Mise put forward has no necessary negative connotation, hence terms like "Cult Movies" and "Imperial Cult". Scientology and David Koresh are often labelled 'Destructive Cults' instead in order to make a distinction.

 

[Traitorfish]

I read Pangur's use of cult as analogous to something like the Marian cult, rather than Jamestown.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I read Pangur's use of cult as analogous to something like the Marian cult, rather than Jamestown.

Being a fan of Shakespeare is in NO WAY equivalent to worshiping Mary, or anyone else.

Please stop ascribing religious meanings or connotations to what is basically a liking for the works of a poet/playwright who lived 400 years ago.

Nobody worships Shakespeare. Nobody prays to him. If someone wins a competition or lottery, they don't clasp their hands and reverently proclaim, "Thank you, Shakespeare!"

 

[Tarquelne]

I read Pangur's use of cult as analogous to something like the Marian cult, rather than Jamestown.

I was thinking Rocky Horror Picture Show.


I believe it's worth looking at different aspects of Shakespeare separately. Poet vs. playwright/storyteller, say.

As a poet I think he deserves quite a bit of hype.
As a playwright/storyteller, not much.

Note that Gori often focuses on the former, and Mise the latter. (Though "inaccessibility" may have a lot to do with that.)

I don't support the claim that Shakespeare is the "greatest ever" as a claim-of-fact. Not only is that singularly difficult with art, but there's been so, so much great stuff since Shakespeare. You generally don't see any single author hyped as much, though, because there's not nearly as much agreement about which ones are the greats, and how great. It doesn't help that the cultural emphasis has very much shifted from poetry to prose, making comparisons more difficult.

The lack of agreement could be because Shakespeare simply outclasses everybody else. But I think it's more likely because the culture has, to a great degree, fragmented. Slowly since Shakespeare's time, but increasingly quickly after the first world war. Everybody isn't reading the same works, and our individual values ... well, maybe they aren't broader than they used to be, but public discussion is permitted over a much broader range.

Shakespeare is foundational, and worth studying even now. On the one hand, I suspect it's a bad idea to teach he's the greatest. But I don't think it's problematical for a teacher to state it as his or her opinion and explain why.

I imagine he's over-hyped in some schools, but I didn't think he was in mine. I suspect the biggest problem with learning Shakespeare is being taught by a teacher who doesn't really "get" him. (Newsflash: Some schools aren't very good!) It does seem that students are often told Shakespeare is great - if not the greatest - but then they aren't actually shown why. That leaves things very much to the individual student's initiative, which isn't a particularly good idea.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Being a fan of Shakespeare is in NO WAY equivalent to worshiping Mary, or anyone else.

Please stop ascribing religious meanings or connotations to what is basically a liking for the works of a poet/playwright who lived 400 years ago.

Nobody worships Shakespeare. Nobody prays to him. If someone wins a competition or lottery, they don't clasp their hands and reverently proclaim, "Thank you, Shakespeare!"

No disrespect, but religion covers a lot more than this. It's possible that you need to familiarize yourself with more models of 'religion' to appreciate what we mean by the term.

 

[Gori the Grey]

@Mise, I asked about your familarity with rap only as a way of clearing away the possibility that you might already know the one I was asking you to listen to: Eminem’s Rap God. I need for it to be your first listen, as your recent experience with Much Ado was your first listen to that play. (I should add that it has no shortage of reprehensible language. You come across as someone who, for purposes of the investigation we’re conducting here, could bracket that, but if that is not in fact true, let me know and I’ll see if I could think of another example. Incidentally, if you’re willing, it’s better if you don’t listen to it on YouTube; the blanked out vulgarities will introduce needless impediments to your ability to absorb what is being said.) All I’m trying to establish is that there are verbal artforms that do not expect one to have 100% comprehensibility on a first listen. Would you spare me another 6 minutes of your time? I suspect you’ll report that you take in more than 25% but less than 100%. But if you understand, by your definition of understand, 100% of it, you should feel free to say so.

But by the way, is that a hard and fast standard of writing excellence for you: full comprehensibility on a first experience? Are there texts that you’ve re-read, or songs that you’ve re-listened to, or films you’ve re-viewed, finding more in them on a second experience than you did on a first? And do you regard a text that yeilds up its full meaning on a first experience automatically a better text?

I’m going to try to make the case that Shakespeare’s excellence lies in the relation between the 25% one does take in on a first listen and the 75% one doesn’t.

@kaiser and TF, I know the sense in which Pangur is using the word cult. His initial full phrase was “mystery cult,” and I’ve objected more to the mystery part than to the cult part. But it bears on (what I take to be) our central question: is the esteem that our culture affords Shakespeare warranted by the excellence of his work, or just produced by elites as a mode of marking their elite status?
In the most extreme version of this view, which I feel Pangur touched on early but has since backed off of a little, it works much like (what I assume you believe about the Marian cult) a massive apparatus of adoration centered around nothing that actually exists. Shakespeare is, to shift metaphors, a ponzi scheme: people invest energy in mastering him, realize there’s nothing special there, but to protect the investment they’ve already made, they in bad faith tell others there is something there.
It all comes back to what I regard as our core question, is the level of adoration our culture affords Shakespeare deserved or not?

@Pangur, I need help understanding your Russian Roulette metaphor. I had always thought that RR was a pure case of luck, a 1 in 6 chance you would die. Are you saying that skilled players (!) have the touch to discern, as the cylinder is spinning whether the chamber with the round will be chambered, and the manual dexterity to exert some finesse that prevents that from happening, thus significantly increasing their odds of not dying?

@Tarq, I've focused on language because the first claim made against Shakespeare concerned the difficulty of his language.

Don’t know if an internet forum will tolerate the glacial pace at which I’m unfolding my argument, but as long as there are people arguing back, I guess we’re in good shape.

Shakespeare isn't hard to understand because of some mysterious greatness in his language, but because he wrote 4 centuries ago in what has essentially become a different language.

Both (though I would strike "mysterious"; that's why I'm invoking an artform, rap, that we regard as lexically overwhelming but not mysterious). We'll get to these two sources of difficulty in time (again, if y'all will continue to spare the time).

 

[Pangur Bán]

@
Both (though I would strike "mysterious"; that's why I'm invoking an artform, rap, that we regard as lexically overwhelming but not mysterious). We'll get to these two sources of difficulty in time (again, if y'all will continue to spare the time).

Why do you contrast 'lexically overwhelming' and mysterious?