I don't think the word relatable is as problematic as the author is making it out to be. I believe we can relate to a lot of things in life. Maybe not exactly but we've come into contact with a lot of things that are similar or we know of people who might share the same experience. I disagree with Glass saying Shakespeare is not relatable. With Romeo and Juliet, we may not all have that person in our life that not having them makes life not worth living, but we may hold a belief that near and dear to our hearts, like Christianity. People are willing to die for what they believe. Like in Macbeth, some people are just crazed buy power; they live for power. And eventually with that hunger, you lose yourself and it ends up in destroying you. Like in Twelfth Night, sometimes we portend to be someone we're not to try and maybe get close to someone or to get higher up on the totem pole. I don't know why Glass believes  Shakespeare isn't relatable? Sure some of his work is out there and connecting your life to something like Twelfth Night is pretty far fetched, but they reasoning behind the characters actions would be similar to some of our own. We're all connected by similar experiences. Almost all of us have experienced a death in the family or have shared the same love for a hobby.  We have all wanted to fit in or have that hunger for power/authority. Mead made a point about how a hundred years ago the word relatable meant to relate to someone or share an experience, but now its become uncommon? I don't think that's true. I hear that word a lot. I think it holds the same meaning as it always has. Mead also made a point about how the word was only used in the sixteen times in Times magazine five years ago. Just because the word isn't specifically used doesn't mean that the meaning has changed. Unless I've completely misunderstood it's meaning, I personally don't see the significances of this article.