One of the lines I disagreed with from the otherwise excellent column: > Schools and universities ought to help us to understand that no book that talks about

One of the lines I disagreed with from the otherwise excellent column: > Schools and universities ought to help us to understand that no book that talks about a book says more than the book in question, but instead they do their level best to make us think the opposite. Of course, a great number of Shakespeare's works were riffs on old plots that had been done many times before, and up to a few thousand years earlier. His genius was not the plots but in what he 'said more than the plot in question'. One could easily make a distinction between analysis of a work and reinterpretation of a work, but I still think it is foolhardy to claim that analysis and critical thinking can not create its own value, and even more foolhardy to imply that that value is in competition with the value of the original work. Anyway, I think the better modern reinterpretations of Shakespeare tend to focus on the themes that Shakespeare added to the classic plots, than they worry about the plot specifics.