Flag Content?

I have spent much of the past year researching Shakespeare, attempting to better understand why he has become the pinnacle of letters in the western world. While I have seen much brilliance in some of his works, I have come to believe that much of what he wrote was really quite weak in terms of strength of plot and development of character. I have difficulty praising him as the height of English theater while reading some of these mediocre works. Is it the case that Shakespeare has been judged solely on the basis of his masterpieces while being excused from the works that are far from models of excellence and thereby avoiding a real comprehensive review of his work? Does his legacy rest at least somewhat on the myth that has built up around him since his death? Or does his mark as a master come from the fact that he made an evolutionary leap forward in the art of drama from which much of modern theater continues to develop?