[brudgers]

The article misses the big difference between Shakespeare in Elizabethan London and Shakespeare in twenty-first century Topeka - today's Shakespeare has far more competition. He's not just competing against Topeka's Marlowe et al., but against those of Kansas City, St. Louis, New York, London, Shanghai, LA, and everywhere else in the world. His $15 million dollar vision for Topeka's very own Globe Theater has to compete with Google, T-bills, and an Arby's franchise for investment.

And of course Shakespeare of Topeka is also competing against the established brand of the original for access to existing theaters and against all those athletes for a slice of the public's leisure time and disposable dollars.

In many ways the Bard had it easy, there's only so much entertainment value in gin and whoring. If he had to go up against American Idol, things might have been quite different.

[theSshow]

The article does mention that "there are so many people pushing to get to the top in sports that 100 people are crushed for each one who breaks through." The author makes the point that it is this competition that creates the best of athletes in our society, and fosters the necessary talent to be come a good athlete.

I do think that the author misses the point when he compares producing a major league player every 10-15 years to be the same as producing a "Shakespeare" every 10-15 years. Producing a "Shakespeare" every 10-15 years is like producing the best of the best every 10-15 years. To play in the Major Leagues, you have to be one of the best, but amongst that elite group, only a select few can achieve "Shakespearean" status.

To produce a Shakespeare, Einstein, or a Michael Jordan requires some luck, and they are characters in history that will be remembered for a while. But it should be possible to cultivate a culture that can foster more talent in the academic fields.