360 Degrees: The Works of Shakespeare

It's been said over and over: Shakespeare was one of the greatest writers in history. All of his writings are ingenious, he was brilliant in his invention of new words, and most of all, he was the master of expressing romance and emotions.

So, we've all heard the raves about Shakespeare's greatness; the positive aspects of his writing have been recorded in thousands of books and lectures. Now, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that William wasn't quite as amazing as everyone thinks.

Shakespeare made up a whole lot of goofy words, and he's known for it. One source said he made up over 3,000 different words. I believe, however, that it's important to remember what time he lived in. There were probably thousands less words back in his time, than there are now. So, while it's certainly cool that he invented words, anybody could have done it. In fact, it's still being done now. Every year, dozens of words are added to the dictionary. Beyond that, many of Shakespeare's words were just silly, like slugabed or flibbertigibbet.

Another popular claim is that every one of Shakespeare's works is a masterpiece. I'd argue that certain works, like his Titus Andronicus were just extravagantly violent plays meant to appeal to audiences that clamored for such entertainment. One researcher, S. Clarke Hues, said Titus has, "14 killings, 9 of them on stage, 6 severed members, 1 rape (or 2 or 3, depending on how you count), 1 live burial, 1 case of insanity and 1 of cannibalism--an average of 5.2 atrocities per act, or one for every 97 lines." It might just be me, but I'd say that's completely excessive. This play is also (with a little research) considered by many to be his worst. If some of his works are so jam-packed with violence, where's the room for the beauty that's supposed to be Shakespeare?

The last statement I made in the opening was that he was the master of romance and emotion. I'm not at all suggesting that he didn't make a huge number of relationships, I'm just suggesting that it's been done in better ways by other people. The often ridiculous Shakespearean language seems to dodge around what he's really trying to get at: the core of human emotion. Romeo and Juliet's encounters are always uncomfortable to the reader, and death (of all things) stops them from truly being able to love each other at the end. Shakespeare made so many hints at love and emotion in his plays, but I've yet to see a place where he actually followed through.

With an opposite view taken, I think it's important to see some sort of balance between the two (here's the dialectic part). On one hand, he's amazing. On the other, he's nothing special. If we weigh the two against each other, we can reach a pretty solid conclusion: Shakespeare was good at many things, but never the best at anything. There were better overall writers, better romantic writers, other people who can create more words. But nobody else put it all together. William Shakespeare was indeed special.