Is Shakespeare...

that country album lost him a lot of fans

good enough that he didnt need click-bait titles.

He's no Jinx Lennon.

Yeah, he was good. So were many other writers for the stage who lived at the same time. Christopher Marlowe was arguably better at tragedies. Shakespeare's particular appeal probably derived from the fact that he knew how to entertain a wider audience than many of his contemporaries who chose to pitch to the wealthy and educated.

His fishing rods aren't bad.. the reels are ok too.

Lord of the Rings is his best work and I can't see him topping it now.

Shakespeare's appearance was a bit like the Beatles; arriving at a time when a number of different factors aligned, combined with a tremendous talent, all converged to create a legendary artist.

Had he been born 100 years prior or after, he would be largely just another footnote, an artist with a few notable poems in a couple of books. But he happened to be the right guy in the right place at the right time.

Reading the stuff as a teenager, teachers would often point out alternative ways of reading the text - hidden meanings and so forth. I'd often think, "You're reading way too much into this, it's coincidence".
But if you go back and look at it, everything he wrote is meticulously put together, nothing is just filler material.

On the inaccessibility of the texts, that's not solely down to the language itself, but as much down to the fact that it is also written lyrically rather than as prose. Plays were written in such a way that they could be spoken or sung, but either way had a rhythm to them.

The plays themselves are as much like the spoken language of the day as a modern musical or song is like spoken language today.

L.Jenkins wrote: »

Shakespeare was a Literary, while Einstein was a Scientist, so there's no real comparison between the two. Would be like comparing Jimi Hendrix to Stephen Hawking.

exactly, Hendrix is much better.