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 This feature, while it still provides useful information, is no longer maintained.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
>What's being referred to here? We don't know, although
>the writer evidently does.If you knew anything about writing, you'd realize that it's a common technique for a writer to refer to nonexistant events as a way of enriching the work. In addition, the event referred to could easily be a fictional construct in WS's mind.
>>The defensive anger about his "sportive blood" suggests >>embarassment at being caught out doing something sexual, >>but we can only guess what.
And, of course, homosexuality is the only possible guess. Right.
The poem could be refering to bonking the innkeeper's daughter behind the shed, for all you know. But you come into this already prejudiced to your view.So you have nothing, based on nothing.
>>This is just one example. The vast majority of the sonnets >>could be glossed in the same way.
Sure. And you can just as easily "prove" WS was a martian by "glossing" the sonnets to fit your taste. But as scholarship, it's meaningless.
>2. Non publication. Obviously a complex issue when it comes to
>the plays. But curiously his admirers never published the >sonnets when they did the plays, why?There can be any of a thousand reasons: they didn't like them, WS thought they were inferior, no publisher thought he'd make enough money to make it worth his while, etc., etc., etc. Without evidence, no guess has any more meaning than any other.
>How come Sh's "sugared sonnets"
>were privately circulated in MS among his acquaintances?Again, many possible reasons. I see no point in speculating, since speculation isn't proof.
>>How come it fell to the semiliterate Thomas Thorpe, and >>what's the significance of that nudge-and-wink dedication?
Again, many possible reasons. I see no point in speculating, since speculation isn't proof.
>How come the sonnets were then suppressed for over a >hundred years?
Again, many possible reasons. I see no point in speculating, since speculation isn't proof.
So your case is based totally on speculation and your own prejudiced reading of the sonnets. It's just as easy to pick and choose to prove the exact opposite.
It all boils down to the fact that there is no evidence to support your conclusion.
Posted by Reality Chuck on April 14, 1997 at 05:32:20
In Reply to "A close reading of Sonnet 121" posted by Prof Mike on April 11, 1997 at 03:57:45
Replies | Post Reply | Shakespeare Queries & Replies From Everyone Else 4.2.97: Top | Help