Quote:
Originally Posted by N. Matheson
Honestly, you are all claiming to disagree with me only to echo everything I am saying. You all agree he cannot be rivalled and there is inherently less value in reading the works of others like Milton. You are just saying everything I am, except you're not saying the quiet part aloud. You all agree you're going to make works inferior to Shakespeare and nobody can ever rival him... but you're still gonna write anyway. That's like building a tower knowing fully a gust of wind is gonna knock it down at any moment. Why are you even bothering when you know the outcome is already failure? I do not understand this!
|
N., this is patently ridiculous, and I think you know it. I think it's also why I get PM's from members saying you're a "bot" or a "troll." Nobody except you has said anything in the ballpark of "there is inherently less value in reading the works of others like Milton." I have said SO many times in this thread (as have others) that art is not a competition. It's not about who is or is not "the greatest." You have this impossibly limited view that if you can't be better than Shakespeare, you've failed. I don't think a single member here believes that. I have never written to be "better" than anyone, because that's typically not the point of writing (unless that's an inner motivator). Not being "greater than Shakespeare" is not a failure, because (again, again, again) that's not what we write for. There's a reason why the
Norton Anthology of Poetry is well over 2000 pages, containing several hundred poets (and just in English). Poets before Shakespeare, poets after Shakespeare, poets few recognize, poets most recognize... Shakespeare gets quite a few pages, but it would be an awfully slim anthology if it were his works alone.
Your analogy about the tower is flawed, but I can fix it for you. What you are actually saying is that the only building in a large city that matters is the tallest one, and anyone who cannot make a tower taller than the tallest is unworthy (but is also somehow foolish to even
try). You also seem to suggest that there is no point for any tower but one...and yet a city with a single tower is not a city at all: it's a barren landscape devoid of anything interesting except a single, impressively tall tower! Continuing this analogy, with a fixation on only the tallest tower, you miss the hundreds of other beautiful buildings surrounding it. Some are short, some are tall, some are historical sites, some are brand new, some have different architectural styles, some are worthwhile variations...but they're all different, all unique, and all make up a distinctive skyline, even if one tower looms a little higher than the rest. When we think of Chicago, we might think of the Willis Tower as a distinctive feature -- it's the tallest building, and a tourist attraction. But while the Willis Tower is an impressive spectacle, Chicago is far, far more than just that recognizable landmark.
I know my words here aren't going to sway you, because nothing in this thread has. It feels like a real-life example of Plato's "Allegory of the Cave," and I literally feel bad for anyone who has such a closed-minded view of the nature of art. But here's the fun irony: I created this thread as a way to address your perspective in a measured, educational way. The result has been a long, enriching, nuanced thread with some wonderful insights from dozens of Eratosphere members. I'm certain that I'm not the only one who has looked forward to reading others' responses, considering their insightfulness, and weighing in when I figured I had something reasonably intelligent to contribute. And that's thanks to
you, N.! This thread wouldn't have existed without me feeling the need to push back on the notion of Shakespeare being the only worthwhile writer. Maybe the thread won't be lauded as the greatest thread of all time in 400 years, but hey, some of us have enjoyed it anyhow.