One way to tap into it is find the impassioned speeches, the raging or the yearning or the despairing or see how closely the rhythms match, the breath of it outlines the feeling
Of course, it is not because of the quality of his thought that Shakespeare has survived, and he might not even be remembered as a dramatist if he had not also been a poet. His main hold on us is through language. How deeply Shakespeare himself was fascinated by the music of words can probably be inferred from the speeches of Pistol. What Pistol says is largely meaningless, but if one considers his lines singly they are magnificent rhetorical verse. Evidently, pieces of resounding nonsense (‘Let floods o'erswell, and fiends for food howl on’, etc.) were constantly appearing in Shakespeare's mind of their own accord, and a half-lunatic character had to be invented to use them up.
Tolstoy's native tongue was not English, and one cannot blame him for being unmoved by Shakespeare's verse, nor even, perhaps, for refusing to believe that Shakespeare's skill with words was something out of the ordinary. But he would also have rejected the whole notion of valuing poetry for its texture — valuing it, that is to say, as a kind of music. If it could somehow have been proved to him that his whole explanation of Shakespeare's rise to fame is mistaken, that inside the English-speaking world, at any rate, Shakespeare's popularity is genuine, that his mere skill in placing one syllable beside another has given acute pleasure to generation after generation of English-speaking people — all this would not have been counted as a merit to Shakespeare, but rather the contrary. It would simply have been one more proof of the irreligious, earthbound nature of Shakespeare and his admirers. Tolstoy would have said that poetry is to be judged by its meaning, and that seductive sounds merely cause false meanings to go unnoticed. At every level it is the same issue — this world against the next: and certainly the music of words is something that belongs to this world.
(Ellroy's) never, as far as I know, come out and said something like "African culture is primitive and could never produce a Shakespeare" like out and proud racist Saul Bellow did
'I once went to jail, but I don't regret it. I do not believe in the liberal hoo-ha that points to poverty and racism as causes of crime. I believe that crime is an individual moral forfeit on an epidemic scale, and those who commit crimes, major and minor, must be punished.'
'Drug addicts, especially young ones, are conformists flocking together in sticky groups, and I do not write for groups, nor approve of group therapy (the big scene in the Freudian farce); as I have said often enough, I write for myself in multiplicate, a not unfamiliar phenomenon on the horizon of shimmering deserts.'
Reading (and looking at paintings, listening to music etc) is a skill. It's not all about what feels good. You have to learn how to do it. Most of us learn to listen by smoking weed in our mid teens. The other stuff not so much. It's a shame
But to answer your question this is a hard one. And I'm personally glad you asked this question because people for sure like to look over the fact the Scorpio's have MASSIVE ego's themselves. It's just that Leo's are such an exuberant and vital sign which is why you don't notice it as much with Scorpios. Leo's are ruled by the Sun and the sun brings vitality and gives life which is why Leo's tend to get the most attention and rep in the egotistical department.
I honestly can't pick because some Leo's are more egotistical than Scorpio's and some Scorpio's are more egotistical than Leo's. So I'll just say this. At the end of the day Leo's are"commonly" much more renowned for being MUCH more warm hearted and loving than Scorpio's so I think Leo's positive traits out shine the who "Leo's are so egotistical" thing.
If you notice, (and astrology has said this about Leo's as well), when a Leo is happy mostly everyone will usually be happy due to Leo's being a source of life and energy and wanting to help others...When Scorpio's are happy, it's usually only that Scorpio that is happy because Scorpio's are only 100% at ease when in their eyes are in total control over everything and everyone ans using others. Not helping then.
Sure both Leo's and Scorpio's are the powerhouses of astrology with huge ego's, but ask yourself on a general bases who makes up for it will a forgiving, loving and deep down genuine nature that only wants to see people happy? Ask your self when one of the two signs egos are not fed, who resorts to violence, grudge holding and vindictiveness as a means to get rid of the perceived threat?
Actually, you may (with good cause) take the piss out of Oto, but going there as regularly as I have done has made me a better listener. I don't know if I could define how, I just know it has. Not going as much right now 'cos of the baby but hope to get back on it soon.