So clearly Shakespeare has first-mover advantage, and first-mover advantage is significant. It also seems likely that there have since been authors with at least as much raw talent as Shakespeare, and authors who have the same or superior technical skill (as they’ve benefited from reading subsequent authors, and theoretical developments in the understanding of how to write).
But it’s not clear to me that “best” has a clear meaning, or that everyone unpacks it in the same way. And it makes sense to all agree that a prominent early figure in some field is “best,” in order to deflect unproductive arguments about an unclear term. Consider the Asimov-Clarke treaty, where each agreed to call themself second best and the other one best.
It’s also not clear to me that one should ignore first-mover advantage. If I develop a nuanced theory of Hamlet after reading the play, reading Asimov’s commentary on it (and Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare is really good), and then reading the play again, then I can talk with most literati about my theory of Hamlet. If I develop a nuanced theory of some niche playwright’s play, even if the play is objectively better than Hamlet, there’s no guarantee that I can talk about it at dinner parties with literati.
Consider the Asimov-Clarke treaty, where each agreed to call themself second best and the other one best.
There’s a bit more to it than that. According to the linked wiki page, Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science fiction writer in the world, while Clarke was required to insist that Asimov was the best science writer in the world.
So clearly Shakespeare has first-mover advantage, and first-mover advantage is significant. It also seems likely that there have since been authors with at least as much raw talent as Shakespeare, and authors who have the same or superior technical skill (as they’ve benefited from reading subsequent authors, and theoretical developments in the understanding of how to write).
But it’s not clear to me that “best” has a clear meaning, or that everyone unpacks it in the same way. And it makes sense to all agree that a prominent early figure in some field is “best,” in order to deflect unproductive arguments about an unclear term. Consider the Asimov-Clarke treaty, where each agreed to call themself second best and the other one best.
It’s also not clear to me that one should ignore first-mover advantage. If I develop a nuanced theory of Hamlet after reading the play, reading Asimov’s commentary on it (and Asimov’s Guide to Shakespeare is really good), and then reading the play again, then I can talk with most literati about my theory of Hamlet. If I develop a nuanced theory of some niche playwright’s play, even if the play is objectively better than Hamlet, there’s no guarantee that I can talk about it at dinner parties with literati.
There’s a bit more to it than that. According to the linked wiki page, Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science fiction writer in the world, while Clarke was required to insist that Asimov was the best science writer in the world.