Granted, it’s likely he may have been innovative back then, and he may have left a trace on society. So what?
So, if “greatest” is defined by trace on society...
Revering Shakespeare seems like a cached thought and an applause light more than anything.
I agree there’s the danger of a cached thought here, but I’m curious what experiment would differentiate between someone thinking Shakespeare is the greatest writer because they’ve been primed to do so and someone thinking that because Shakespeare was the greatest writer they’ve read.
For an experiment you could actually pull off without raising people in isolation from the rest of society, I’d take advantage of the fact that the average person doesn’t actually know most of the works Shakespeare wrote, and separate out a control and experiment group where the control group reads and gives a rating of their perception of the literary quality of several works of short fiction, including some of Shakespeare’s lesser known works, properly attributed, and the experiment group reads and rates the same stories with the works improperly attributed, crediting some nobody writer with a plausible renaissance-sounding name with Shakespeare’s works.
Arguably, Shakespeare’s primary contribution is in his best-known works, not his lesser-known works. Comparing Shakespeare’s second-best to Jonson’s second-best seems like a poor way to determine which is better- compare The Alchemist against A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Similarly, comparing Ibsen and Shakespeare is a tough problem- in some sense, Ibsen is noteworthy only because his style was so different from Shakespeare’s. As EE43026F points out, tastes vary- and there’s no taste that seems like the natural judge for “greatest.” Taking a random sample of humans alive today and having them decide which is better by majority vote seems like a poor judge, as is taking a random sample of theatre affectionados and having them decide by consensus.
(I am curious, though, how people in the developing world would respond to, say, Shakespeare plays vs. Ibsen plays vs. Hansberry plays. Does Shakespeare win points for adapting so readily to Japan?)
“Impossible,” began one of the elders, handing his pipe on to his neighbor, who interrupted, “Of course it wasn’t the dead chief. It was an omen sent by a witch. Go on.”
I wonder if their judgement of quality was a coincidence? It seems odd that they would judge it a good story, while reinterpreting the plot … well, not all that comprehensively—not a lot of meaning gets changed...
Anyway, it might be interesting to see if their judgement of story-quality is roughly randomized across Western literature, or if they remain parallel even when interpretations differ.
Not saying I would have done better in the moment, but the author’s utter refusal to adapt to different lore and cultural expectations really irked me. Just say it was how the omen got interpreted rather than spoken words!
Here is a quick gloss, in broad brush strokes (with a mixed metaphor or two thrown in for good measure). The Japanese have been smoothly appropriating and adopting parts of other cultures since at least the beginning of their recorded history. Their recorded history, of course, began when they adopted Chinese writing.
According to my Grand Theory of Japan, Japan is notable for always seeing itself how it is reflected in the eyes of others (a trait that is visible at all levels of abstraction, from culture to individual). Its name, in its own language, can be interpreted “land to the East”—it was given by the Chinese and happily adopted by the Japanese (in part because it could also be interpreted as “originating from the sun” and that tied in nicely with the Amaterasu (sun goddess) creation myth). Early Japanese people were very concerned with catching up to the level of civilization of China.
When Western powers arrived and started colonizing China, Japan quickly realized it had a new target and started emulating Britain and Germany. Huge changes to the organization of society and social customs swept through Japan with relatively little resistance. First Japan thought they’d earn the respect of the West by colonizing China, since that seemed to be what all the cool kids were doing. When that didn’t quite work, they fought (and won) a war against Russia. Soon after, they tried to create an empire in the Pacific, and it would have worked if it weren’t for the new economic powerhouse that was the US.
So Japan turned to emulating the US, changing its way of life once again to build an economic power out of toothpicks and rubber bands (billions of them, subsidized by the US). The constitution, which was practically handed to Japan by the occupying US, was soon held to a regard similar to that of the US towards our own constitution.
History lessons aside, you can see the signs of this tendency/attitude everywhere in Japan. The language is about half loan words from European languages, mostly English. Every sort of holiday is celebrated—even though Japan is not historically Christian [1] and most Japanese don’t identify as Christians, Japanese people widely celebrate such holidays as Christmas and St. Valentine’s Day.
[1]: Just a few centuries ago, all of the Christians were rounded up and crucified. The proffered reason being, Christianity is exclusive and so goes against social harmony. Later, they encountered Protestant Christianity via the Dutch and were happier about that—the Meiji Restoration guaranteed freedom of religion (aside from a brief hiccup), and as a consequence many Japanese attend religious events from Buddhist, Shinto, and Christian traditions (and possibly others), often without really getting why that would ever seem weird.
I don’t dispute most of this seriously (and am aware I am responding to an old post, so I don’t mind if you don’t respond) but how does the seclusion period, where they tried to severely limit contact with the west for a few hundred years, fit into your thinking on the subject?
So, if “greatest” is defined by trace on society...
I agree there’s the danger of a cached thought here, but I’m curious what experiment would differentiate between someone thinking Shakespeare is the greatest writer because they’ve been primed to do so and someone thinking that because Shakespeare was the greatest writer they’ve read.
For an experiment you could actually pull off without raising people in isolation from the rest of society, I’d take advantage of the fact that the average person doesn’t actually know most of the works Shakespeare wrote, and separate out a control and experiment group where the control group reads and gives a rating of their perception of the literary quality of several works of short fiction, including some of Shakespeare’s lesser known works, properly attributed, and the experiment group reads and rates the same stories with the works improperly attributed, crediting some nobody writer with a plausible renaissance-sounding name with Shakespeare’s works.
Arguably, Shakespeare’s primary contribution is in his best-known works, not his lesser-known works. Comparing Shakespeare’s second-best to Jonson’s second-best seems like a poor way to determine which is better- compare The Alchemist against A Midsummer Night’s Dream. Similarly, comparing Ibsen and Shakespeare is a tough problem- in some sense, Ibsen is noteworthy only because his style was so different from Shakespeare’s. As EE43026F points out, tastes vary- and there’s no taste that seems like the natural judge for “greatest.” Taking a random sample of humans alive today and having them decide which is better by majority vote seems like a poor judge, as is taking a random sample of theatre affectionados and having them decide by consensus.
(I am curious, though, how people in the developing world would respond to, say, Shakespeare plays vs. Ibsen plays vs. Hansberry plays. Does Shakespeare win points for adapting so readily to Japan?)
One groups reaction to Hamlet.
Something like this is going on when we read Platonic dialogues.
In one of my anthropology classes, this was covered, but we didn’t get a copy of the whole piece. Thanks.
This is awesome.
Huh.
I wonder if their judgement of quality was a coincidence? It seems odd that they would judge it a good story, while reinterpreting the plot … well, not all that comprehensively—not a lot of meaning gets changed...
Anyway, it might be interesting to see if their judgement of story-quality is roughly randomized across Western literature, or if they remain parallel even when interpretations differ.
Not saying I would have done better in the moment, but the author’s utter refusal to adapt to different lore and cultural expectations really irked me. Just say it was how the omen got interpreted rather than spoken words!
Everything adapts readily to Japan. It’s what the culture is built on.
I’m interested. Just how is Japanese culture built on that?
Here is a quick gloss, in broad brush strokes (with a mixed metaphor or two thrown in for good measure). The Japanese have been smoothly appropriating and adopting parts of other cultures since at least the beginning of their recorded history. Their recorded history, of course, began when they adopted Chinese writing.
According to my Grand Theory of Japan, Japan is notable for always seeing itself how it is reflected in the eyes of others (a trait that is visible at all levels of abstraction, from culture to individual). Its name, in its own language, can be interpreted “land to the East”—it was given by the Chinese and happily adopted by the Japanese (in part because it could also be interpreted as “originating from the sun” and that tied in nicely with the Amaterasu (sun goddess) creation myth). Early Japanese people were very concerned with catching up to the level of civilization of China.
When Western powers arrived and started colonizing China, Japan quickly realized it had a new target and started emulating Britain and Germany. Huge changes to the organization of society and social customs swept through Japan with relatively little resistance. First Japan thought they’d earn the respect of the West by colonizing China, since that seemed to be what all the cool kids were doing. When that didn’t quite work, they fought (and won) a war against Russia. Soon after, they tried to create an empire in the Pacific, and it would have worked if it weren’t for the new economic powerhouse that was the US.
So Japan turned to emulating the US, changing its way of life once again to build an economic power out of toothpicks and rubber bands (billions of them, subsidized by the US). The constitution, which was practically handed to Japan by the occupying US, was soon held to a regard similar to that of the US towards our own constitution.
History lessons aside, you can see the signs of this tendency/attitude everywhere in Japan. The language is about half loan words from European languages, mostly English. Every sort of holiday is celebrated—even though Japan is not historically Christian [1] and most Japanese don’t identify as Christians, Japanese people widely celebrate such holidays as Christmas and St. Valentine’s Day.
[1]: Just a few centuries ago, all of the Christians were rounded up and crucified. The proffered reason being, Christianity is exclusive and so goes against social harmony. Later, they encountered Protestant Christianity via the Dutch and were happier about that—the Meiji Restoration guaranteed freedom of religion (aside from a brief hiccup), and as a consequence many Japanese attend religious events from Buddhist, Shinto, and Christian traditions (and possibly others), often without really getting why that would ever seem weird.
I don’t dispute most of this seriously (and am aware I am responding to an old post, so I don’t mind if you don’t respond) but how does the seclusion period, where they tried to severely limit contact with the west for a few hundred years, fit into your thinking on the subject?