[Shaun J. Russell]

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.

[Mark McDonnell]

It's hard to take you seriously, N, because your logic is so ridiculous.

Let's, just for argument's sake, say that Shakespeare is the "best poet ever" and that this means there is no point in writing because nobody could ever match him. This seems to be your position. A very odd one for a member of a poetry workshop but there it is.

Presumably, by this logic, you must think that Milton, Blake, Keats, Dickinson, Eliot, Plath (etc etc until today) should not have bothered writing either, since they came after Shakespeare. So you would like the entire history of poetry to have stopped soon after the early 17th century.

Here's where it gets really silly.

Before Shakespeare began his writing career, presumably somebody else must have been "the best poet ever". Chaucer maybe? So, by your logic Shakespeare himself should not have bothered writing because, well, how could he ever match Chaucer?

And before Chaucer...

Do you see how reductio ad absurdum all this is?

Personally, when I write a poem I don't see myself as in competition with anyone. Shakespeare is wonderful but dozens of writers, and individual poems, have given me as much joy and magic. I strive, perhaps, to be somewhere in their company and, importantly, something beyond my control makes me love the act of creation itself. The idea that there is one unattainable peak is beyond silly. It's interesting, I think, that there is no consensus on who the second best poet is. That's because there's nothing scientific or objective about this ranking endeavour. Shakespeare just happens to have been placed at the top because humans have a natural tendency to want to create hierarchies.

If you must write, you will write. It's that simple.

[Max Goodman]

Shaun, Mark, Chris even,

What evidence is there that N. is even reading our responses to N. (or that N. has any interest in reading anything, including the plays or poems of Shakespeare)? What purpose is there in disputing with him, rather than continuing our discussion?

Those are rhetorical questions, though I suppose if there were answers, I'd be interested in them--maybe in a separate thread, which is where all the is-the-purpose-of-writing-to-defeat-Shakespeare? stuff, IMO, belongs.

[Mark McDonnell]

What evidence is there that N. is even reading our responses to N. (or that N. has any interest in reading anything, including the plays or poems of Shakespeare)?

Very little, Max, it's true. And yes, halfway through writing my post I did wonder why I was bothering. However, something about N's relentless, one-note negativity seems to have been a catalyst to a very interesting, articulate thread, almost as if in defiant contrast.

But I agree, the "is there any point writing" argument is a silly dead end.

[Max Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell

something about N's relentless, one-note negativity seems to have been a catalyst to a very interesting, articulate thread, almost as if in defiant contrast.

Fair enough, Mark. I suppose I was saying exactly what I was objecting to N. saying: "Don't discuss what you're discussing! It's not worthwhile!"

As my love of Larkin might suggest, I don't object to negativity. I do object to the shallowness of N's argument and N's repeating it again and again without addressing the thoughtful objections others have raised or in any way developing it.

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Max Goodman

What evidence is there that N. is even reading our responses to N. (or that N. has any interest in reading anything, including the plays or poems of Shakespeare)? What purpose is there in disputing with him, rather than continuing our discussion?

Mark's answer is also my answer, and echoes a comment I made a few days (or pages) ago: this thread isn't about N., and never was. Even if he (?) had a post that inspired me to create it, it's the dogmatic idea -- that there is ONE greatest and no one can ever be better, so it's not worth even trying -- that has given this thread its life. Mark's "catalyst" comment is almost literally true, because a catalyst itself doesn't change, even as it causes a reaction around it. N. doesn't seem to be changing at all, but this thread has been a joy to read and contribute to as it has evolved.

Originally Posted by Carl

Shaun can correct me on this, but I read somewhere that there’s no evidence Shakespeare knew Homer.

Well...Troilus and Cressida is an account of events in the Iliad, though through the lens of Chaucer's Troilus and Criseyde (when I was a Ph.D. student, I actually wrote a comparative analysis of the two). George Chapman was one of Shakespeare's contemporaries and likely a friend/acquaintance. His translation of the Iliad came out in 1598, so I doubt Shakespeare wasn't aware of it. Harder to pin down The Odyssey, however. Shakespeare loved the classics (especially Ovid), but I think (but am not 100% sure) that the general consensus is that Shakespeare didn't know Greek. His drawing from Plutarch was always from North's English translation. There's a book I've come across before that was called something like Shakespeare's Books, but I looked for that title recently and couldn't find it (there's another book with a similar title, but it's not the one I was thinking of). But yes, Shakespeare definitively knew SOME Homer through translation, but probably not all.

Originally Posted by Christine

Where would you suggest someone start with Milton?

I would 100% suggest the 1645 Poems. I say that not because I have a particular interest in that volume (I presented on it at Renaissance Society of America's conference this past March, and will be doing so at RSA again next year), but because Milton's fingerprints are all over it, which was at least slightly uncommon of poetry editions by that time. He has a few explanatory headnotes to some poems, and one in which he admits to the reader that it was a poem that he abandoned because he had been too young to do the subject justice (which begs the question why he included it in the first place!). There's a great 20th century reprinting that's been long out of print, but is relatively cheap and available if you look for it. The editor is Cleanth Brooks. Here's a link to a copy I just located on Abebooks (my go-to for used scholarly books), but the link will probably expire when someone buys that copy, so mea culpa if it's nullified soon.

[Christine P'legion]

Originally Posted by Shaun J. Russell

Here's a link to a copy I just located on Abebooks[/url] (my go-to for used scholarly books), but the link will probably expire when someone buys that copy, so mea culpa if it's nullified soon.

$13 for the book and $32 to ship to Canada—woof. I'll have to pass on that particular copy, but I'll definitely keep an eye out elsewhere. Thanks!

EDIT:

The collection can be downloaded as a free ebook from Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31706

For those who prefer to listen, there is a public domain LibriVox recording available as well: https://archive.org/details/miltons_...1911_librivox/

[Shaun J. Russell]

Originally Posted by Christine P'legion

EDIT:

The collection can be downloaded as a free ebook from Project Gutenberg: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/31706

For those who prefer to listen, there is a public domain LibriVox recording available as well: https://archive.org/details/miltons_...1911_librivox/

That's actually a completely different collection...which is completely fine, of course, but the 1645 Poems specifically have the poems (and two masques) in a particular order, likely curated by Milton himself (or in consultation with bookseller Humphrey Moseley). If you're just reading his poems as poems, any collection is fine...but if you want to see them as Milton first published them, you really can't beat the 1645 Poems via the edited/reprinted edition I noted above.

[N. Matheson]

I think I should defend myself from people saying things about me. First of all, I hold this standard to every field, so I am not arguing this is unique to poetry or playwriting. I believe that the only thing in existence that matters is legacy. Nothing else matters. I don't think happiness, children, health, etc. any of that matters when put against legacy. And the only way to secure a legacy, truly, is to become the greatest in your field. Shakespeare achieved total mastery to the point later readers elevated him to the status of a god. He will never leave that position and will be remembered forever in that role. If he can't be usurped from the role, then you cannot acquire that legacy yourself, so there's no point in conducting your field if there's no more room. I do not know why people are disagreeing with me on this. Legacy is the only thing that can outlast you. We're all flesh and bones that will turn into dust, but legacy will outlast all of that. We should be dedicating ourselves solely to this pursuit above all other things. This is why poetry and all art is a competition, because if you fail to be remembered, then your life will have been a few decades and then dust. I don't know how else to describe that other than failure. This is why I am trying to tell you all that if you can't surpass him, there's not much point. Because if it can't surmount his legacy, then it's doomed to oblivion. A life forgotten isn't much different than a life that never existed to begin with.

[Christine P'legion]

Originally Posted by Shaun J. Russell

That's actually a completely different collection...which is completely fine, of course, but the 1645 Poems specifically have the poems (and two masques) in a particular order, likely curated by Milton himself (or in consultation with bookseller Humphrey Moseley). If you're just reading his poems as poems, any collection is fine...but if you want to see them as Milton first published them, you really can't beat the 1645 Poems via the edited/reprinted edition I noted above.

I think this is a better ebook version: https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/1745

Comparing the ToCs, it seems to have the 1645 poems in order, followed by the 1673 edition additions and then... everything else. I just wish the producers hadn't put all of the poems in italics!