But how does that square with what you just wrote three days ago?

Honestly, that sentiment is the gist of what I was trying to convey throughout much of this thread: that we can love Shakespeare, and even acknowledge that he's the "best" playwright of Western literature, but can simultaneously acknowledge he's not beyond reproach in countless ways. There's a reason why the wealth of literary criticism on Shakespeare isn't just 10000 monographs talking about how great he is. It's a circular thread at this point, I suppose, but I just can't wrap my head around thinking that "the best" means faultless or that none else are worth reading because they're not the best.

For what it's worth, I'm teaching Marlowe's Edward II alongside Macbeth and Othello in my intro to drama course this spring. I'll be curious to know how my students feel Marlowe compares to Shakespeare, and I suspect that even if they think that the two Shax plays are "better," they're not so much better that Marlowe's isn't worthwhile. But we'll see!

Because even his worst is light years beyond what anyone else has ever or will ever write.

Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.

There is nothing more to say.

I give up. I have tried to make you see the reality, and it does not work. His work is all that matters and everything else is meaningless.

I'm pretty sure by the end of it, they'll be throwing Marlowe's books into the fire.

N. Matheson, You seem to think that poetry is, not a way of communicating, but a competition for a winner-take-all championship. Reminds me, in a way, of Harold Bloom, who also had a penchant for ranking poets like heavyweight boxers; and he, too, was a professed bardolator, putting Shakespeare in a category by himself. But Bloom loved poetry, & was richly appreciative of many poets. E.g., Whitman and Dickinson, our great American poetic geniuses, who did wonderful things that Shakespeare never could have done. The more wonderful things, the better. Poetry is like God’s house, it has “many mansions.”

As for Marlowe: I agree with Shaun that Shakespeare isn’t “so much” better that Marlowe “isn’t worthwhile.” But I do think Shakespeare is an order of magnitude better. Marlowe had a huge impact, and Shakespeare is, in a sense, organized around that impact, but with a dimension of intelligence Marlowe had no inkling of. Marlowe remains of vital interest, in part, because of what Shakespeare made of him. But he is also intrinsically interesting, as an exemplar of the cultural explosion that separated medieval from modern worlds. If you have any interest in history, you want to keep all the poets, not just one.

You just contradicted yourself. If Shakespeare is a magnitude better than Marlowe, then Marlowe is redundant.

If you told me that there was no chance at all that my art (in any field) would be remembered as the zenith of the medium, I would burn it all and not look back. The fact others would bother maintaining what will inevitably be tossed aside and forgotten? That sounds more like insanity to me.

Given the attitudes you express here, N., I'm telling you. Burn it.

I suspect N. is trying to be provocative, rather than sincere. In either case, we waste our time by taking him seriously. I'm as guilty of that as anyone in this thread.

Agreed.

Now excuse me while I go back to looking at paintings of the only worthwhile artist (Michelangelo) while listening to an opera by the only worthwhile composer (Mozart), and laughing at those feckless philistines who think that art is a subjective experience that requires personal and emotional investment.