I disagree. Shakespeare was not "plain" even in the 16/17th century. It wasn't archaic, but it was far, far from plain. The same is true for a lot of great literary works, even recent ones. Many great works have a lofty diction, which is easy to lampoon when inferior works veer into purple prose, but when it works, really elevates language.
True. But I think you can agree that the (now) archaic language and cultural context that would have been common knowledge back then gives an extra layer of difficulty over the already poetic/literary nature of the work
Watching Shakespeare has a similar feel to me as watching cartoons in Spanish as an intermediate Spanish learner. I can understand a lot of it. But I have to use so much of my brain power interpreting the language and get so distracted by unfamiliar phrases or words that I can't really get immersed in the story
I don't know, I guess it's just not for me. I think the 1700/1800's are about as far back as I can go