Shakespeare , SBF and Survival

From Taleb

What if Taleb and SBF are both wrong? True, Shakespeare survived for nearly half a millennia, but this does not imply it is good or superior. Nor is the survival/death process random in a statistical sense, but rather there is a correlation. Once Shakespeare had been deemed historically important and worth preserving, shortly after his death, then its continued survival was close to assured, not that its survival meant that it had to compete against newer literature in some sort of ‘marketplace of ideas’. He was already famous the time of his death. The canon of literature was simply expanded to include more work deemed historically important. It’s similar to Trump’s legacy: even if he’s the worst president ever according to experts, his legacy will endure nevertheless in every history textbook forever owing to the significance of being president.