Okay, let's give this a try again (I had one lengthy post ready, and the darned thing got et!).
First, some general statements: A.) On the subject of overanalyzing... while I'd say that Shakespeare can take any amount of analysis, I do think that forcing too much analysis of any topic on a single individual is a very bad thing. Things that should be enjoyable, that should be joyous to read, end up being one's
bête noire -- something that should be a crime, in my book. That being said, if one is studying English (especially English literature), then studying those who have been the greatest influences on that literature would seem an essential. This is something I'll try to get into later.
B.) Aside from Romeo and Juliet (a bowdlerized version, I might add) I never studied Shakespeare in school. (Then again, I never went to university, either. My then-wife did, and yes, she studied Shakespeare, though as an elective, as she was majoring in RTF.) So my own
feelings about Shakespeare's work come from reading it on my own hook, out of curiosity and pleasure.
C.) No, my daughter is not on the stage. As far as I know,
none of my relatives are into the thespic arts (although a surprising number have gone into either the nursing profession or the ministry....)
Now I'll try to address some specific points:
[1] What you seem to be groping towards here but have not stated is that it is easier to get students to study analysis using a text which is inherently interesting. This may well be true, if it is then clearly we would be better teaching our students using the Beano as it is far more interesting than Shakespeare and if it does get boring then it at least has pictures that tell you something about the text such that no one comes away from the text with nothing. I am not however convinced that by using an 'interesting' text as the focus of thier study students are being correctly encouraged to apply analysis. Surely being able to analyse the content of a mobile phone contract is a better life skill than being able to disccourse upon something interesting like the relative merrits of the Culture and contemporary American society or even something really boring like how having Hofman, a real Jew, playing Shylock impacts the dynamic of Ther Merchant of Venice.
In a sense, yes, it is about an inherently "interesting" text. But it goes beyond simply "interesting" in the usual sense, into a text that can, as I've mentioned before, support varying readings; something that can be revisited numerous times and seen from different angles, and each time reveal a new way of looking at the text. This is something Shakespeare's work has proven up to, and will continue to do, as it has a more complex structure, a richer, more versatile use of language (including anaphora, litotes, hyperbole, chiasmus -- which last gives that feeling of cyclicity to certain of his writings, alliteration, assonance, onomatopoeia, etc.), all of which can affect the impression one receives from the piece or passage. This, in turn, allows one to revisit the text and take away new, different insights into life (experience, culture, mythology, legendry, history, emotion, etc.) with each reading; and not necessarily on the level of conscious analysis, but by dint of its subtle flavorings and how it resonates with the reader's own experiences and emotions -- whether it be overall, or their mental/emotional state at that specific point.
While the other examples you give can indeed bear some such variant readings, the fact that they are less complex allows for less such; this is what I mean by "richness" -- that ability to bear up under such scrutiny and repeated wear and tear due to the complexity and insight into the human condition within a text. The other examples you include do have their levels of interpretability, yes. Beano, for example, can be seen as a cultural artifact that tells a great deal about the assumptions of the time of its production, just as Shakespeare can. But it lacks the depth, complexity, and layers of symbolic meaning (and experience) encapsulated within Shakespeare.
Which, by the way, addresses something said by B.D. -- Shakespeare is succinct in that he can sum up, in a phrase or a relatively brief passage, a great deal of insight into these things, doing so in such a way that "more is said than is said", if you will. The noted soliloquy "To be or not to be...", for instance, encapsulates in a very brief space an enormous amount of insight into the "existential crisis", as it is sometimes called, and does so in such a way that it strikes on both the intellectual and emotional levels. Lady Macbeth's plaint about the blood on her hands speaks volumes for the emotional turmoil involved in betrayal, ambition, guilt, remorse, fear... even touching on the Biblical idea of Abel's blood speaking from the ground, as the blood here becomes the agent of retribution. This is handled in just a very few lines, yet the profundity of what it has to say has taken volumes of analysis. That is what I mean by succinct.
[2] My argument is not a reduction to the absurd argument as either a mathematician or a logician would understand the concept. I suggest therefore that you are using exageration for dramatic effect, deploying rhetoric to convince the audience?
No, I'd say it does apply as an argument to the absurd, for the reasons given above. It is the difference, again between candy floss and a steak -- both have their place, both can be pleasant, and both have some nutritional value; but one is wispy and insubstantial, while the other is substantive and requires mastication. It is on the level of Warhol's idea of cultural artifacts such as soup cans (or their representation) being as full of information as, say, Fuseli's "The Nightmare" -- yes, the one does tell us something about its time, but the other tells us not only about its time, but about a lasting part of being human; it symbolizes something familiar to the majority of people, and resonates on varying levels throughout the years. It is the idea of "the contemporary" being praised above "classic" taken to an absurd level -- again, there is a place for both, but one simply doesn't have the weight or heft of the other.
[3] I assume that a Harlequin romance is like the fine cod purveyed by Messers. Mills and Boon rather than the quest of the clown in motley for his Columbine? In any case your assertion is correct, your assertion to the nature of my argument as in [2] above wrong.
While I've not even seen any of the Mills and Boon pieces (though I've had them described to me often enough), and only when rather young dipped into the Harlequin romances out of curiosity... I'd say the analogy is fairly apt; though the Harlequins I dipped into certainly lacked the explicit nature I understand is part of the modern Mills and Boon. From what I understand, though, they've ended up somewhere between the two states now -- not as explicit (as that would alienate long-time readers), but much more so than they were then.
[4] At this point we come to the crux of your argument. That 'richness' of text is an important factor in how well that text can be used to sharpen minds. This may or may not be so. Unfortunately, you have neither defined what 'richness' is nor demostrated that it is to be found in the works of Shakespeare. Thus I cannot comment on this your central thesis.
See the explication above.
[5] No one is endowing Shakespeare with 'pretensions'". I take as MY text the ancient art English Pantomime. "OH! YES THEY ARE!". I content that Shakespeare is pretentious for the following reasons; some of it is propaganada in support of crowns long fallen, it is of inconsistent morality, it is laughable when it should be serious, pathetic when it should be funny, human motivations are often unreal, it is racist, sexist and sectarian, I grow weary &c. &c. &c.. You on the other hand ask the audience to accept your assurances that Shakespeare is without pretensions simply on your say so! Not good enough!
Perhaps we're using the term differently here? I am referring to the aesthetic component of Shakespeare, his insight into human emotional complexity and experience, his use (and expansion of the use of) the language, etc. I don't think anyone would argue that a fair amount wasn't propagandist, nor that, by today's standards, there's quite a bit of sexism, racism, and sectarianism. But this is true of anything from any time, including our own. Place the contemporary writings in a different cultural context, and they will be open to the same accusations (or something similar). That's simply the result of the author being a product of their own time; the verdigris that clings to any writer's work after a certain time or in a different place. What is great about any writer transcends that, overcomes it -- and Shakespeare repeatedly has done so, perhaps more than any writer of his time, to appeal to numerous classes of people (unlike Marlowe who, despite my often preference for his work over some of Shakespeare's, was a bit too "high-toned" overall to appeal to as broad a spectrum). In other words, I am arguing that no one is claiming greatness for Shakespeare (as a playwright and master of the language) that is not deserved; if there are those claiming Will was perfect... they've got rocks in their heads. The man had more anachronisms, for one thing, per play, than darned near anyone I can think of. But what he did with the substance of his work can overcome a dozen such flaws -- and has done, repeatedly.
[6] If you think the stuff is 'rich' show us why. We are not Orwell's sheep, you have to show us not only that the text is 'rich' but the 'richness' has some value. Do not expect us to say "baaaaa baaaa it is rich because j. d. Worthington says it is so"
This seems almost (albeit not quite) a restatement of point 4. Again, the explanation (at least in part) of what I mean by richness can be seen above.
[7] If you think the Beano is pretentious you have to demostrate it to your audience. Ditto Noddy. Ditto Potter (although in this case I would personally yeild to your position out of personal distaste for the text).
Again, I wasn't claiming pretentions for any of these; simply for putting them on the same level as Shakespeare (or Chaucer, or Marlowe, or [either] Shelley, or Keats, or...). They may be worthy enough in their own way, but they simply do not have the complexity and richness of texture, multiplicity of meanings, layers of interpretation, or subtlety of understanding within their text that Shakespeare & Co. have.
[1] This is not a valid argument. One can read Prokofiev but fewer than one in a thousand can appreciate it fully this way. I was meant to be played not read. Once can read Shakespeare but in doing so so much is lost, he intended his plays to be performed not read.
Actually, it is a valid argument. Shakespeare intended them primarily to be performed, but he also knew that such things were read as well, by individuals. He knew that the actors would have to read them, the publishers, and perhaps some of the nobility as well. He knew they had to pass muster with those who would not attend the play as well as those who would, especially given the often turbulent political times he lived in, where one had to practice care when addressing political subjects if one wished to keep one's head -- or at least avoid exile.
[2] This point in a nutshell
As for this... you've taken my comment out of context, which -- as anyone analysing texts knows -- can considerably alter its meaning. This is why cover blurbs or critics' comments on movie posters are to be taken with a large amount of salt. "Wonderful..." says So-and-So, of the
Australian Daily News... when what was actually said was "A wonderful example of the purest crap ever put on paper...."
[3] No he did not. He wrote what SOME people think were the most amazing pieces in the nglish language. Good God some people think Buffy scripts are the greatest works in the English language, some the Bible. You would not want to stop these people having an opinion but yopu would not want to encourage them in thier delusions. So too with the Shakespeare buff (see just like the bard I can do really bad puns, just like the bard they are quite,quite rubbish).
There is (again) a
huge difference here. On the one hand, we're going on the opinion of the widest (and deepest) read people for several centuries; on the other, we're going for those whose main contact with writing is often through the popular media of television and film -- and not often the best those have to offer. (Don't misunderstand me; I happen to enjoy Buffy myself -- especially the first two seasons, which maintained a surprisingly high quality overall. But because I like something does not mean I put it on the same plane as something of higher value. I am a big fan of the pulps, I have an extreme fondness for Doc Savage, for instance... but these are in no way -- save for some individual stories in the general pulps now and again -- on the same level as Shakespeare or Dostoevsky.) And there is nothing wrong whatsoever with puns. That is a bit of snobbishness that has long been discarded. There are, of course, different levels of punning, and that which is more complex, and enriches the subtleties of meaning within a passage -- allowing for varying readings -- are better than a simple double-entendre; but either one displays the inherent elusiveness (and allusiveness) of language, its playfulness and subtleties and shades of meaning. Or, as Browning put it: "Fancies that broke through language and escaped...." Shakespeare has overcome periods of eclipse (such as the Restoration) and proven time and again to appeal to both the most widely-read and intelligent, as well as those who simply enjoy a good, rousing performance. I'd say that argues more in favor of my assessment than otherwise.
[4] This suggests we might study English Lit for some reason other than to learn analysis, I for one can see no other reason. One does not need to be trained to read for enjoyment.
There are many reasons to study English literature: to acquire a greater understanding of the culture and its traditions, including the origins of many of our own views; to see how the great minds of the past worked with the stuff of life and their times creatively, and how so much of it remains relevant to the human condition today (not necessarily in incidentals or specifics, but in deeper and broader terms); to enjoy good stories, plays, poems; to experience a "connection" with those of the past, witness the continuities that bind us to what has gone before, as well as to allow us to see how things change in both the popular and the more rarefied strata of society; to learn from those who went before how to develop or not develop (depending on how successfully or unsuccessfully they achieved their effects) any theme we wish to address.... And so on. Not to mention that it simply encourages an appreciation of the experience of life on many, many more levels; the more one can appreciate the subtleties of these things, the more deeply one can appreciate the subtleties of day-to-day existence, and the more types of experience one can enjoy on more levels. All of these things can be greatly enhanced by a study of the literature of the past (as well as the best of the present). Anything that broadens the view and opens one more to an understanding and appreciation of the world is a benefit, both to the individual and (potentially) to the society, as it also tends to enhance one's ability to think in broader terms, see more solutions to problems, feel a connection to others, see the necessity of aiding others, generally boosting true beneficence in one's conduct toward others (I'm not meaning charity here, which often has a feeling of the donator being superior to the recipient, but genuine kindness and empathy toward one's fellow beings, etc., etc., etc. All of these are things that can be enhanced (and quite usually are) by a greater appreciation of the arts and humanities, among which English literature can assuredly be counted.
How could that have happened. 
