/lit/ - Literature

>>5432607
Ah my goodness, dipshit. Look, troll, you should already know that Shakespeare's current deified status is indeed dependent on the particular trends of history. Every popular author's fame is a chance, even if they were incredible. In the 17th century he was popular but not worshiped like Sidney (and had he not published a book of his plays, none of us would know his name--many playwrights' work has been lost completely because people stopped performing it).
Shakespeare's reputation and influence are almost incalculable, so your opinion of the quality of his work is almost irrelevant (especially since it's so asinine and immaturely defended). It's like the 20 year-old dickheads who like to make fun of the Beatles, because they have no conception of what the Beatles did to music. You have no idea what Shakespeare did to literature. Shakespeare is the most quoted writer in the history of the English-speaking world, for Christ's sake. Entry-level philosophy, physics, etc., have nothing to do with it. What kind of fucking idiot says we shouldn't bother studying the most important author in our language's history because he can imagine better uses of the time in other subjects? All you're giving is your opinion, anyway. I found entry-level philosophy didn't intellectually stimulate me at all: it bored the fuck out of me. Learning the living history of my language, the culture that created much of mine, and close reading the amazing prose is worthwhile. And get over this idea that you're daring by disliking Shakespeare. Lots of people do, and have. Your main issue is the completely fucked-up idea that Shakespeare's rep was created by elitist institutions, and ignoring the centuries of him packing playhouses with normal people, even lower-class ones. You shouldn't be teaching English at any level until you grow up a bit.