What do you think of them? Which are your favourite? Who are they about?
Printable View
What do you think of them? Which are your favourite? Who are they about?
I've never really been able to enjoy the sonnets the way I do the plays, kelby.
I've decided that this has alot to do with confidence. The plays are written by somebody confident of their powers and are full of characters who are confident that they will be listened to but the sonnets often seem to be written by somebody who is unsure of themselves and their own attractiveness. I think this is the reason that I find the sonnets hard work.
Also I get the feeling that the person being praised does not live up to the praise that's lavished on them and is infact some kind of vacuously beautiful youth that the author is making a fool of himself over.
I think they are really good.;)Quote:
What do you think of them?
I am particularly intrigued by the so called "procreation sonnets" the first 17. I think it is an interesting idea, one man who is trying to convince another man to settle down and have children. I am moved by Shakespeare's constant references to the painful passage of time which features strongly here, that is something that we can all relate too, but at times affects me strongly, take for instance "Make war upon this bloody tyrant. Time?/and fortify yourself in your decay". (XV) Of course this is meant as a positive argument: have children to leave your mark on the world while you decay, but there is still a shudder at the thought of my own mortality sometimes - I just enjoy life too much, however I find the narrator and the male object in them interesting regardless, but all of them are good.Quote:
Which are your favourite?
The whole debate about who they were supposed to be about is a completely separate subject for me, and if I'm honest one that I find a little annoying at time, as some people detract from the object of them which is the art, and the art alone. I'm not saying that I am uninterested in who they were written for or who the people in them are supposed to be, but I regard the subject as entirely secondary to the sonnets, which is after all a poetic creation.Quote:
Who are they about?
I couldn't agree at all, in fact the voice in the sonnets seems to think that the sonnets will be around for some time being immortalised in his verse, not to mention the masterful use of language displayed throughout.Quote:
...but the sonnets often seem to be written by somebody who is unsure of themselves and their own attractiveness.
Possibly, but then again the tradition of the sonnet form, especially at this particularly time, calls for overt expressions of feeling as a show of virtuosity, amongst everything else.Quote:
Also I get the feeling that the person being praised does not live up to the praise that's lavished on them and is infact some kind of vacuously beautiful youth that the author is making a fool of himself over.
My favorite is 73 "That time of year thou mayst in me behold"
I think this is one of the ones usually attributed to the Fair Youth.
The ones around 16-18 that Neely mentioned are really good as well, with that progression from immortality in child-birth to immortality in verse. I also agree with the sentiment that Shakespeare seems quite sure of his virtuosity in the sonnets.
I recommend Sir Philip Sidney's Astrophil and Stella and Lady Mary Wroth's Pamphilia to Amphilanthus if you like sonnet sequences.
I'm not that interested in the first 17 sonnets as they are all kind of the same; get married, have a son so your beauty can live on. They look like they were commissioned because then you get all Shakespeare's love stuff.Quote:
Originally Posted by Neely
I have a great copy I nicked from school which has an interesting introduction by WH Auden. Auden said it's pointless to try and work out the identities and that we should focus on the poetry.
I like deciphering the narrator's relationship to the other characters.
My favourites are:
- Sonnet 18: Considering it comes after all that samey get-married stuff, it's like a breath of fresh air, even though the poem's so well-known.
- Sonnet 20: The narrator, whether it's Shakespeare or not, is clearly a man bemoaning the fact that this man is pretty and the narrator totally would except the fact that the man was made for women, 'pricked out'. There is certainly sexual attraction there.
- Sonnet 22: I love the last couplet:
Presume not on thy heart when mine is slain,
Thou gav'st me thine not to give back again.
- Sonnet 42: The love triangle!
And lots more. Whether the narrator is Shakespeare or not, he is still a fascinating character and the relationship is fascinating. (I haven't got onto the Dark Lady bit)
How do you see the relationship between the narrator and the Fair Youth? Do you think it's just a close friendship, just artistic appeciation of the man's beauty with nothing romantic? Pure romance or secret desire?
Personally I think the narrator is infatuated with the young man and his beauty and that the infatuation becomes sexual. There is a hint of a relationship in some of the sonnets, I think, but it is certainly mainly the narrator who is interested in the youth.
Your thoughts?
There may be some sexual attraction involved, but I think it is more of an idealized Platonic male love. I can't remember which sonnet it is, but there's one where he speaks of the good and bad angels in competition over his love, and the "good" angel is male, while the "bad" angel is the Dark Lady. The relationship between the speaker and the Dark Lady always seemed a lot more physical than what I can glean from the Fair Youth ones.
Sonnet 144
Two loves I have of comfort and despair,
Which like two spirits do suggest me still:
The better angel is a man right fair,
The worser spirit a woman colour'd ill.
To win me soon to hell, my female evil,
Tempteth my better angel from my side,
And would corrupt my saint to be a devil,
Wooing his purity with her foul pride.
And whether that my angel be turn'd fiend,
Suspect I may, yet not directly tell;
But being both from me, both to each friend,
I guess one angel in another's hell:
Yet this shall I ne'er know, but live in doubt,
Till my bad angel fire my good one out.
Edit: I get the impression that the Dark Lady is a bit of a skank.
This is an obvious reading to me as well and I'm frankly flabbergasted that the heterosexual deniers can't notice the difference.Quote:
Originally Posted by OrphanPip
For myself there are a few strongly resonating sonnets. 27, 29 & 67 come to mind immediately. They are ones which deal with holding up against suffering. They lend me strength.
X
Just started the Dark Lady poems and they are more physical. The narrator also plays a more dominant role in the relationship; there is less idolatry.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
What's really interesting about the sonnets is the way that Shakespeare plays with gender; you've got a young man with feminine beauty and a woman who is alluring but not your conventional poetic love object. This is why the sonnets work- because gender is played with to a point where it all blends and the overriding feature is the aspect of love portrayed in the poem.
My favorite is 130. That's the one where he describes the Dark lady as a real person rather than an ideal, with hair like black wires and lips less red than coral and, best of all, a reeking breath. It is like none of the others, and is really striking. The couplet at the end seems so heartfelt and genuine after the pages and pages of sicophancy that has gone on before.
My mistress' eyes are nothing like the sun;
Coral is far more red than her lips' red;
If snow be white, why then her breasts are dun;
If hairs be wires, black wires grow on her head.
I have seen roses damask'd, red and white,
But no such roses see I in her cheeks;
And in some perfumes is there more delight
Than in the breath that from my mistress reeks.
I love to hear her speak, yet well I know
That music hath a far more pleasing sound;
I grant I never saw a goddess go;
My mistress, when she walks, treads on the ground:
And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.
I know that the numerical order of the sonnets are only a best guess, but when the next one (131) starts,
Thou art as tyrannous, so as thou art,.
As those whose beauties proudly make them cruel;.
I imagine a scenario where the poor chap has read her the previous one and she is not happy with him!
It's similar to the effect of Sonnet 18- after reading 17 poems urging his love to get married we now get a rush of love and no longer urging marriage.Quote:
Originally Posted by prendrelemick
Sonnet 127 was perhaps a nicer way of phrasing his sentiments than 130- at least for her.
Yes. He appears to be writing with his head and heart to the young man, but with his loins to the dark lady. Incidentally, Henry Wriothesley, the leading contender for the youth was also Shakespeare's cousin.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Urgh! Maybe that explains the incest theme in Hamlet.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
*scratches head* I thought we just agreed that there was nothing sexual between the two men. I don't see where you're drawing this conclusion. I merely meant to suggest that there is a good reason for them to know each other and feel filial love for one another.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
If the W H of the sonnets was Wriothesley (and there is consderable doubt) Then the relationship may well have been sexual. He was imfamous for his bisexuality. When he was a soldier in Ireland he would wantonly and publicly fondle his officers. He is depicted many times dressed as a woman.
The Victorians had a great deal of difficulty accepting that Shakespeare wrote love poetry to a man, (there are versions where all male gender references are simply changed to female.) I reckon we should accept that these are poems of exceptionally tender and personal feelings felt by one man for another. There are also a few puns that would suggest a sexual relationship.
I only noted that the Dark Lady ones were more physical and less idolatry. And there's certainly a bit more than filial love:Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
'But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure,
Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.'
Would anybody say that to someone they felt 'filial love' for?
'By adding one thing to my purpose nothing.'
How would you read 'my purpose'? I think it's pretty clear that Shakespeare's saying that the man looks like a woman and Shakespeare would...except the man is a man.
Also in Sonnet 36:
'Let me confess that we two must be twain,
Although our undivided loves are one:
So shall those blots that do with me remain,
Without thy help, by me be borne alone.
In our two loves there is but one respect,
Though in our lives a separable spite'
He's certainly not free to love this guy.
I'm not trying to scandalise everyone by saying that Shakespeare may not have been entirely straight but you can tell there is a clear torment in the narrator that the man has all the virtues of women except he is biologically a man and thus off limits. The narrator isn't necessarily Shakespeare, although the sonnets sound very personal- but if you're going to imply that the narrator is Shakespeare or the emotions are Shakespeare's for real people, you can't claim that Shakespeare has no desire to be in a relationship with the Fair Youth.
Sure, especially a known bisexual who might be coming on to you, but you don't want to engage. All speculation, but a perfectly valid reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Agreed. I read purpose as 'desire' and 'function'.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Ah, I see. So you read the poem as Shakespeare trying to dissuade the youth and convince him to live a 'normal' life such as the procreational sonnets encourage? I can certainly see how it could be read like that but I think there is still an element of desire on the narrator's part: 'the master mistress of my passion.' It looks like the narrator's doing the whole 'martyr for love' thing because there's a few sonnets where the narrator says that he can't make his love public.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Not exactly, more that the writer isn't interested in bedding down with the youth although he cares deeply for him. Some have suggested a timeline of after the death of young Hamnet Shakespeare for the writing of the sonnets. Perhaps the author is projecting his former love and care for his son onto his subject.Quote:
Originally Posted by kelby_lake
Hmmmm...possibly. But there's a lot in the sonnets about 'unmentionable' love so I'm pretty sure there's some sort of romance there, even if it's a pure one. There's also a lot about the man being like a woman, which seems irrelevant to the replacement of his son. Perhaps it's a love affair with the writer's own youth.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Indeed, the Dark Lady section is more physical in tone but it's also a very cynical section. Whatever the narrator's getting off her/from her, it never has the intensity of the early sonnets of the Fair Youth section. So perhaps it's not so much boy vs. woman as innocent love vs. 'adult' love, which creeps into parts of the Fair Youth sequence, like when the FY is 'cheating' on the narrator with the DL. The narrator slowly sees that although his relationship with the Dark Lady is not romantic, it is not a bad or wrong sort of love. The romantic delusions with the Fair Youth are more harmful.Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
People, Henry Wriothesley was not Shakespeare's cousin, he was his patron. He was the Earl of Southampton, the same person that Shakespeare dedicated his two long narrative poems to. So, there was no filial love really!Quote:
Originally Posted by xman
Thanks for clearing that up Darkprincess
My favourite is either 66 (I love all of the "And"s and often imitate that aspect of the poem in my own sonnets) or 53. But the entire sequence is so amazing and mysterious. We do not know if the poem's are as personal as they appear, if Shakespeare is himself the speaker. We do not know if Shakespeare authored the dedication to Mr. W. H. or if it the handiwork of the publisher. How can we understand that there was but one printing only of the sonnets and then they vanished from print for decades. So much is presumed about the poems and their origin/significance.
My favourite reading is by Alex Jennings, although I love Simon Callow's as well. Sir John Gielgud's dramatic readings can be delightful but I need to be in the mood for them. A very interesting vocal interpretation may be found on the cd accompanying Helen Vendler's The Art of Shakespeare's Sonnets, my personal favourite study. One of my literary passions is to devour literary studies of the sonnets that discuss their form, their language, do they "prove" that Will was queer, do they prove that Will was Oxford, &c &c.
I just searched YouTube for people reading Shakespeare's sonnets. The link below is to sonnet 130 by Alan Rickman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP06F0yynic
I haven't listened to enough of these to have a definite opinion on whether this is good or not, but the guy does have a deep voice and clearly enunciates the words.
Not quite so fast please. Patron, almost certainly, but related as well. Not first cousins, but cousins still.Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkPrincess
http://www.vukutu.com/blog/wp-conten...lause-2008.jpg
wow where did you get this xman?
When I couldn't find the reference on my bookshelf I just started Googling. I don't know who the guy/gal is or what their belief/agenda might be, but they were nice enough to provide the family tree. I knew it had to be out there somewhere because I'd either read it before or am delusional. The good news is that the delusions are held at bay so far. :D
Wow, that's impressive!! Alright, I take my words back :D
Though, I still don't think the kind of love Shakespeare is celebrating in the sonnets is filial, it's bordering on obsessive!
I agree, I think there is definitely serious man-love going on between the writer and the "fair youth".
Having spent many an hour on these poems, I find them by far the most fascinating of Shakespeare's works. There is some glorious poetry (and some that is not). But it is the extra dimensions of parallel meanings and autobiography - only really appreciable if one absorbs the collection in its entirety - which makes them unique.
Take the beautiful Sonnet 73, mentioned above. Read in isolation, who would realise that this is also a wonderfully witty plea for a good redundancy package?!
Those interested in a more detailed development of this topic will find it at http://BiographyinSonnets.aspx
I think the best way to read the sonnets is as a collection. They do have a narrative, albeit a disjointed one, and the poet, Fair Youth and Dark Lady all become interesting characters. You can find nice poetry and clever lines in his plays- the sonnets are more than that.Quote:
Originally Posted by iansteere