Is Shakespeare the greatest writer of sonnets?

People say his plays "tower over (his sonnets)" because people, in general, prefer drama and narrative to lyric. They don't really understand what makes the lyric and sonnet form different than drama and narrative, and what those differences mean to determining genius or lack thereof. As far as comparing his sonnets and plays, the thing is that Shakespeare has a lot of plays that nobody would care about if they didn't have the name Shakespeare attached to them. I'd say at least 1/3 of his plays are rather mediocre, with only patches of the greatness that he displays in his best work. I actually think his sonnets are more consistent, and after he gets away from the opening "procreation" sonnets, I think most all of them are worth attention and analysis, with at least 20-30 of them being amongst the best ever written in English.

Although I think the best of his drama has indeed more to present than his sonnets, I agree with MorpheusSandman when he states the plays are much more uneven as a whole.

I would say that there are only 4-5 poems (depending on your attitude towards Shakespeare's portion of Two Noble Kinsmen) that don't live up to the Shakespeare name. 1/3 is a bit much.

Verona, Henry VI 1-3, Titus, Love's LL, Comedy of Errors, King John, Timon, All's Well, Pericles, Merry Wives, Kinsmen, Henry VIII I think are significantly weaker than his greats. Most of them have moments of greatness, flashes of the greatness yet to come (or that was), but I don't think any are exactly masterpieces, even though many are generally good/solid (I quite enjoy Love's LL for the complex wordplay, but there's not much of interest beyond that). Many of the earlier efforts very much seem to foreshadow what was to come (one can view Comedy of Errors as a trial run for Twelfth Night, eg, or the Henry VIs for the second history tetralogy). Of course, several of them likely had other writers involved (Henry VI and Pericles especially), which contributes to their unevenness.

I'm aware this is all subjective and so there's no real point to arguing....but Comedy of Errors made the list? Really? It is a wonderful play - it is Brecht before there was Brecht - not to mention the leaps he makes with the standard Roman comedy.

Also, while it may not have some of the complexities of the "great" plays - 3 Henry VI and (to a slightly lesser extent) 2 Henry Vi are very enjoyable and you cannot ignore the fact that if it were not for the York tetralogy, there would be no Shakespeare.

I go back and forth when it comes to All's Well. Some of the devices he employs in regards to destroying the genre of comedy are brilliant. Helena is both one of the strongest and weakest female characters, making her very interesting. And the sharp irony running through the entire play (particularly the ending) makes it worthwhile.

I've been reconsidering Pericles recently. The first time I read it I really did not like it - and I still don't care much for the first half of it (which Shakespeare might not have written). The second half has some great moments, and it shows Shakespeare's new experimental phase, laying the groundwork for Cymbeline, Winter's Tale, and Tempest.

I could go on, but again, this is all merely subjective. The point is, as I am beginning to discover with the sonnets, so with the plays; there is almost always more to Shakespeare than what appears on the surface - except for in Verona, which is him finding his feet, Merry Wives, which is him pandering, or Henry VIII, which is him - I don't know...

Well, the plays are more uneaven, but really, the reason why people like his plays better is because his best works are plays. Hamlet, Lear, Othelo... his great plays is what put him up there. His sonnets would not be the same, as good as they are.

I enjoy Comedy of Errors, but I can't help feel that it's merely a warm-up for Twelfth Night, which I find better on every level to the point it make Errors look rather juvenile by comparison. I'm not sure about the "Brecht before Brecht" comment. The Henry VI do has some good drama and some high points, especially the characterizations in II, but there are some plain awkward and silly moments, not to mention the uber-violence of III. I really think they were a strong collaborative effort because they vary wildly in style and quality. All's Well is just one that, even though I've read/seen it 4 times (including BBC and Arkangel productions) I never really remember much of it. There's just nothing that sticks in the mind about it. Pericles, again, has the unevenness of his collaborations. As you say, it's laying the groundwork for his great romances to come, but it's still very inconsistent and transitional.

I don't want to completely throw all of these plays under the bus; I even stated earlier that I felt most of them have some great moments, but they are not consistently brilliant as his masterpieces are. Even at his worst, Shakespeare was incapable of being completely uninteresting, and it's why we can find worth even in his worse productions; but I also think sometimes we give him a pass and tend to forgive the bad moments because we remember the moments of genius. The thing about unbridled geniuses--as opposed to those that are more cautious and careful in their productions--is that it's bound to produce some crap. I don't think any artist is capable of being both prolific and near perfect. I'm reading Byron now, and greatness and awfulness regularly trip side by side. As one contemporary critic said, not everything he wrote checked with his genius before it left his brain and found its way to paper. Well, Shakespeare was much the same, and we should be grateful he wrote as much as he did and threw caution to the wind as much as he did. Such recklessness was probably instrumental in allowing him to produce his towering masterpieces, as those masterpieces are frequently just refinements of ideas he'd flung around beforehand (Henry VI being a clear trial run to the second Henry tetralogy).

Mmmm I read sonnet 29 and thought what a struggling artist! thanks MS.

I think of WS as a poet who had to make his living writing plays. I do not see him as "The Greatest Writer of Sonnets" because there isn't such a thing but he certainly used the form very profoundly. How many great sonnets would anyone have to write to become the Muhammad Ali of sonnet making. One would do me.

I wonder if anyone has tried composing music for "Sonnets To Sundry Notes of Music".

I believe the original statement is mostly that of, personal preference. In my opinion he had some flops and, some glorious masterpieces.