The thing with the Sonnets is that they can't be extricated from each other; the sequence tells a story, and each one depends on the others for its full meaning.
I didn't (and wouldn't have) used any of the sonnets in my own wedding, but I'm not so big on authorial intent/meaning with poetry. My experience with it is the opposite of absolute. I generally enjoy learning authorial intent, or reading different theories on it, but I don't let it affect where the poem hits me, e.g. Frost's
The Road Not Taken.
Oh, I absolutely think the emotional effect of a poem is just as important / valid / meaningful / totally personal as the "critical" version, and in a way I almost wish I hadn't done so much studying of them from the lit crit standpoint, because now I can't read them as untempered love poems anymore.
But the emotional truth of it is as unique as the reader, and the beauty of poetry is that it's like particle theory in physics; the act of observing the poem changes it, and changes it with each individual observation. My "truth" of the sonnets, which I have been big-mouthed and opinionated about here, is just that -- only mine. Everyone else should love the sonnets on their own terms, from "Y'know, I love that 'marriage of true minds' sonnet, and I don't care what anyone else thinks of it; to me it speaks of true love, and I'm going to use it in my wedding, so screw you, Cervix Lady!" to "I hate poetry, please let's talk about something else."
it pains me to see "Let me not to the marriage of true minds..." used in a wedding ceremony, because that poem is not at all about everlasting love.
Er....really?
Man, I hate feeling ignorant. Particularly about something that I love. Because it's like -- I don't really love what I thought I loved, you know?
The biggest thing about Shakespeare that intrigues me is that he seems to be the perfect example of "genius comes from anywhere." One of the arguments in the "Shakespeare didn't write Shakespeare" kerfuffle is that a guy with a basic education couldn't have written such perfect descriptions of love, hate, longing etc. He read whatever he could get his hands on, apparently, and he had the knack. Not all writers have the knack, of being able to string the words together correctly. It's one of the things that I could be tempted to consider my soul as a fair price for, Shakespeare's knack.
Heh. One of Shaw's big weaknesses, was his constant sniping at Shakespear. Sheer jealousy by a minor genius of a major one.
Oh, God, then I'm the biggest loser ever, because I have the frontispiece from the 1609 quarto tattooed on my arm.
Really? That's so cool. I want one.
One of Shaw's big weaknesses, was his constant sniping at Shakespear. Sheer jealousy by a minor genius of a major one.
Shaw also thought that sex was icky, and that in the future we'd evolve into perfect beings that wouln't have sex.
Sj, I'd tell your classmate, as long as you don't say "you ass". It's important to learn and although you can pick up different things from texts, they could be wrong.
The amazing thing about Shakespeare (plays, poetry, whatever) is that everyone can take a little something of it. It's malleable enough to come across to stuffy academics, bawdy enough to laugh at, passionate enough for romantics and intricate enough for obsessives.
The man (and I do believe in the man) was a gifted, ambitious, tricky bastard who knew how to use his skills to get ahead in a world that was moving pretty fast.
The only thing I hate about his works is that a lot of English teachers try to introduce kids to the really boring stuff because they worry about the SEX or the murder. I had read Twelth Night several times but until I saw it performed, live, by some really talented people, I had no idea it was so much FUN. It was an epiphany for me.
I've studied him and his works extensively, but I don't look down on someone who's only read one or two sonnets and loves them for whatever they get out of them (even if it's not technicallly the correct interpretation).
