I am never sure about judging literature in the context of social change. I wonder if the author is making a similar mistake to those 19th-century critics who extrapolated Shakespeare from Euripides, or whatever. Shakespeare is more genuinely timeless than basically any author I have read, but the author goes from 'boy in 1850 they were dumb to judge Shakespeare through this lens' straight to 'here is the lens under which I feel the need to judge him'. Okay.

There is a bottom line, and I think it is neither. I haven't finished yet, though.

I really like what he said about power and status and the main characters of the four primary "tragedies." And I'm learning a lot about this 'schoolroom stereotype' of Shakespeare -- I never paid attention in/went to English class so I guess I missed that. Nowadays it is required to teach edgy Vietnam memoirs and books which will influence how children think, rather than simply the best stories. (A separate conversation, but I have to say how scary this is. Treasure Island and Great Expectations encourage kids to imagine, dream and feel emotion. The modern curriculum puts thoughts into their heads, fully-formed.)