Originally Posted by fresnelly

I don't think Shakespeare is overrated. I'll agree that he may be overproduced (often poorly) but if you look at his contemporaries, you can better appreciate his strengths.

I've worked on plays by Thomas Middleton and Cyril Tourener who came just after WS, and they really pale by comparison. The sense I got, is that these playwrites are grasping at all of the standards cemented by Shakespeare: Double crosses, Cross dressing, star crossed lovers, evil twins, mistaken identity... You name it and they've tried to stuff it into a single story. The plots are ridiculously complex and the cliche that everybody dies at the end holds true. Think Pulp Fiction vs. Very Bad Things

Obviously, Shakespeare stole from his predessors and contemporaries, but his voice pokes through with a clarity that the others don't. I don't have a great quote for you and I'm no scholar, but his later play Pericles (I like to call it The Fantastic Adventures of Pericles) is a good primer on how he rises above the material.

He didn't write the whole thing and it shows. It's a rollicking adventure/fantasy that vears in a number of directions, but every once and a while, the text snaps you to attention and if you're keen to it, you'll recognize his voice.

You can dismiss him if you like, but he's not going anywhere.

I apologize to those I have offended by comparing Quentin Tarantino to Shakespeare .