a word from our sponsors
See the new shakespeare.com. This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help
You wrote:
>>> I can only say that the internal evidence convinces me. First,
because Sh never sought to publish the sonnets, despite their
evident literary greatness (and evident to him, too); <<<One need only study history to understand such a seeming
curiosity. However, this little fact puts the sonnets in
the same group as the vast majority of Shakespeare's works,
does it not?
>>>> ... second,
because they're of an extremely personal nature, <<<<Oh? And, what on earth would make you suspect this?
And, why is "Venus and Adonis" or "Rape of Lucrece" any
more "impersonal"? How are the philosophical meanderings
of Hamlet any less "personal"? How is the search for meaning
in the concept of ambition in Macbeth any less personal? How do you
determine what is "personal" What criteria have you chosen
to be your barometer?You also wrote:
>>>> third, because many
clearly refer to events well known to poet and recipient but not
to us, eg Nos. 34 and 35 ("No more be griev'd at that which thou
hast done," etc., <<<<Again, are you capable of seeing how your original
premise is merely supposition, and therefore meaningless?
>>> fourth, because of the raw intensity of emotion,
especially Nos. 146-152. <<<<Uh, excuse me, but such "raw intensity of emotion"
fits the overall plot, and is (arguably) equalled in
many, many of his other works.>>> Finally, if we don't situate these
poems in Sh's life, how do we read, say, # 107 at all? <<<As fiction. Since that is all that can be said of
them, with any degree of accuracy, what need we say more?
>>> I know the argument that Sh is after all a master at
creating convincing fictional characters, but that doesn't
mean the sonnets are fictional. <<<<Any statement which tries to "prove" something about
the author is meaningless, unless you can prove that
they are anything but fiction.>>> At some point, the literature
must be allowed to speak for itself,<<<Finally... if you only knew how close you were to the
truth, here.>>>> and the "I" voice is
persuasively personal (at least for me). <<<Aye, there's the rub. A world can be found between
those perenthetical marks of punctuation, don't you think?
>>> If it isn't for you, well, there are some people who
don't like Sh at all, and how do we "prove" to them the
contrary judgment? <<<Sorry, but your gross generalization just does not
cut it. You see, there are too many of us who do "like"
Shakespeare, and who do not "flinch" at a homosexual theme
expressed in a fictional work. We do not assume that such
a theme is indicative of ANYTHING, since this theme has
been explored throughout history by so many others, some of
whom were heterosexual and some of whom were homosexual
and some of whom were bisexual, or asexual. An author who
invents homosexual relationships is no different than
an actor who portrays a homosexual character (something I, a
heterosexual have done on several occasions). Furthermore,
I have also (as a writer) created homosexual characters, and
homosexual relationships. What does this say about me?I await your detailed analysis, but I shall not
"bate" my breath.You also wrote:
>>>> Even if we had a letter from Sh saying "the sonnets are my
life," would you accept it? <<<Not necessarily, since even an author may
not be able to state the sources of his
"muse" with any real certainty.However, your inventions would not be as ludricous
as they thay are. But then, why discuss hypothetical
situations?>>> Many wouldn't, citing Lawrence's "trust
the tale not the teller." It happens in literary studies all
the time. <<<Gosh, do you suspect there might be a reason for that?
>>> But consider that the sonnets were written over several years,
surely that's agreed, and we can follow a clear narrative
implied by the see-sawing emotions and events. If Sh
created them as a fiction, why didn't he publish them?Mayhaps for the same reason the majority of sonnets
which bounced around the court in that time period
were not published? It also may have had something to
do with the "newness" of the industry, and the painstaking
labors involved, and the difficulty of getting
anything published.Or, had those reasons never occurred to you?
>>> Why just one or two
(138 and 144)in The Passionate Pilgrim? Why did they
have to first appear in a pirated edition full of typoes? Why
was a second edition not published for another century? <<Have you been studying the silly techniques used by
those who debate the authorship? Sigh...It would seem obvious that you are in need of a good
crash course in studying his contemporaries, and noting how
few of their works were published during their lifetimes.
Also, study the printing techniques, and note the tendencies
toward what you refer to as "typoes" [SIC}. Notice especially
when that first dictionary was published. Study a few of
the so-called "bad Quartos." Study other works which were
published in the latter 16th and earliest 17th centuries.Then, get back to us.
You wrote:
>>> To claim their autobiographicality is an act of
critical interpretation,just as any reading. <<<<Poppycock. You really do excel at this, do you not?
No, to claim their autobiographality is an act of
extremem irresponsibility, and it does a great injustice
to scholarship.>>>So I've offered you my reasons. What are yours? <<<
Evidence. Ethics. Scholarship. Honesty.
-Bruce
Posted by Bruce Spielbauer on April 10, 1997 at 15:07:36
In Reply to "The sonnets are probably autobiographical" posted by Professor Mike on April 10, 1997 at 14:12:34
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help