Why we're better at making athletes than writers

Also of worth noting is that guys like Shakespeare and Dickens were not as well regarded in their own day as they are today. They were the equivalent of 'trash' or 'pulp' writers. If I remember correctly Dickens pumped out most of his work in the form of penny serials, printed on crappy paper and sold by street vendors. Shakespeare was regarded as low-brow and theatre was not held in high regard, basically the "Jack-Ass" or "low production values couple of kids on youtube" equivalent of his day.<p>And, to be honest, most of the elite athletes don't make a lasting name for themselves. Willie Mays, yes... Michael Jordan perhaps... but Larry Bird? A great, even dominant player but do the kids of today even know who he is? I've <i>heard</i> of Kareem Abdul Jabar, but I couldn't tell you which team (or teams?) he played for.<p>The star of 'elite' athletes burns brightly, but fades quickly, whereas literary achievement can be passed on and on and on from generation to generation. The good stuff endures.

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 <i>et al.</i>, 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.<p>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.<p>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.

Can also apply to engineering...