|
"[Posting] should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood." - William Shakespeare (speculative) "Villain, I have done thy mother." -Titus Andronicus, IV.ii. I know goons have a rep for being barbarous philistines who only like media about spaceships and incestuous dwarfs, but I think better of us! So let's talk Shakespeare-- favorite plays, favorite lines, favorite insults (mine is above, although "tread this unbolted villain into mortar and daub the walls of a jakes with him" is up there), in-depth smarty-pantsed textual analysis, historical speculation, nagging conundrums, good/bad adaptations, unorthodox character interpretations, &c. &c. If you saw a particularly rad production, post about it here! If you want to expound at length about how Iago really just wanted to gently caress Othello, then lay on, MacGoon! Just don't come in here with any authorship controversy nonsense, because that makes you a ridiculous person and the English major equivalent of a 9/11 truther. I'll start things off with my namesake: Falstaff. What do you make of him? The conventional interpretation is that he is a "lord of misrule," and that Hal's rejection of him represents an important and admirable step into adulthood and kingship. Other scholars (most notably Harold Bloom), see him as a vital symbol of joy and life, and that by rejecting him Hal throws away his own humanity in exchange for power. You can also see Falstaff as a historical symbol-- he represents Medieval England, and that by getting rid of him Hal ushers in the Early Modern Era and all the attendant machiavellianism of the nation-state. Personally, I'm sympathetic to the Bloomian interpretation, but I think his Falstaff-worship goes a bit far. The dude is unquestionably bad news, but Hal definitely loses something essential when he ditches the Eastcheap gang.
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
Apologies because this isn't related to Falstaff. I teach Shakespeare in my English classes and I have to say that a lot of the disdain for him in the younger set comes from the fact that his works are often read silently rather than watched (like they should be). I actually think that it's much more effective for most to watch him performed. I didn't understand Twelfth Night at all as a 17-year old and found it confusing as hell until I actually saw it and thought it was hilarious. Best Shakespeare adaptation IMO is Baz Lurhmann's Romeo & Juliet- I showed it this past semester and the kids loved it too. I also liked Joss Whedon's Much Ado about Nothing (and yes I realize that's awful goony of me to say). Titus by Julie Taymor is excellent as well; Jessica Lange kills it in that movie.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
No worries! Not everybody shares my bizarre Falstaff fixation. Anyhow, I totally agree about the Baz Luhrmann Romeo + Juliet (I always call it "Romeo Plus Juliet" in conversation). It's visually incredible and I love how over-the-top and florid it is. Gotta say that DiCaprio doesn't seem to have much of a grasp on the verse, though-- Clare Danes acts rings around him. I was actually not a huge fan of Whedon's Much Ado, honestly. Something about it felt very high-school-productiony to me. Also, re: performance vs. reading, I think you're generally right. Some of his plays, though, seem nearly impossible to perform well (coughkinglearcoughcough), and so I have always enjoyed them more on the page. Does anybody know of any good adaptations of Measure for Measure? I've always thought that one was mad underrated. It's a comedy that feels like a tragedy-- everybody gets married at the end and its super depressing. Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 22:40 on Dec 1, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2014 22:34
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:So let's talk Shakespeare-- favorite insults Hamlet: "There's ne'er a villain dwelling in all Denmark, but he's an arrant knave." Archaic and anachronistic but not incomprehensible to some.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
I always found Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet rather silly. Every line is shouted, some of the attempts to fit Shakespearean dialogue into a modern-day setting are overly cute, and Mercutio is a pretty cringe-worthy stereotype. I've seen the hamminess defended as a satirical commentary on urban violence, etc., but mostly it just comes across as unintentionally funny. By the way, I found this essay about a passage from Hamlet that's pretty interesting: http://tartarus.org/martin/readings/poem08.html I agree with him that Hamlet's poem, which on the surface seems like such a stridently confident affirmation of love, is actually more ambivalent when examined closely. I don't really agree with his conclusion, though, where he backs away from what he's just noticed because he apparently wants to believe that Hamlet truly loves Ophelia, which seemed far from clear to me, although it's been a while since I last read or saw Hamlet. I always remembered the line as "Doubt that the stars are fire" instead of "Doubt thou the stars are fire" myself. While the search results aren't quite as lopsided as they were when the essay was written, "Doubt that the stars are fire" (with quotes) still yields 37,900 Google hits, while "Doubt thou the stars are fire" yields only 32,300. Silver2195 fucked around with this message at 03:33 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:"[Posting] should be pleasant without scurrility, witty without affectation, free without indecency, learned without conceitedness, novel without falsehood." This quote is found in a lot of 19th- and early 20th-century books and some random websites, but none of them seem to list the play it's from. I can only assume it was made up out of whole cloth by a Victorian.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Silver2195 posted:This quote is found in a lot of 19th- and early 20th-century books and some random websites, but none of them seem to list the play it's from. I can only assume it was made up out of whole cloth by a Victorian. Haha yeah, I couldn't find any info on that quote's origins either. I strongly suspect you're right and that its apocryphal. I was kinda hoping nobody would call me on it, but fair play either way. If it is authentic Shakespeare, its probably one of those fragments that gets quoted at complete face value even though its highly ironic in its original context (see also Polonious' "To thy own self be true" speech, Iago's two speeches about reputation, and "All the world's a stage.") And yeah, when I have more time I'll definitely give that Hamlet essay a look. Though I haven't given it a great deal of thought, my reading of his poem was always that it was deliberately banal doggerel, showing how perfunctory his relationship with Ophelia was. I dunno if Hamlet really loves anybody, with maaaaaaaaybe the exception of Horatio.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Oh and as far as Luhrmann's R + J goes, I always felt that the silliness was kinda the point. It is in fact hilarious, but I don't think that's unintentional. It's Shakespeare as comic opera, and I think it works for what it is. All those closeups of the handguns reading "DAGGER" or "SWORD 9MM" on the barrel crack me up to no end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Anybody ever seen Slings and Arrows, the show about a Canadian Shakespeare troupe? Hella underrated.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2014 23:30
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:No worries! Not everybody shares my bizarre Falstaff fixation. I also love Falstaff. And this thread reminds me that I had a Read Shakespeare Together thread I should get running again.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
Blind Sally posted:I also love Falstaff. And this thread reminds me that I had a Read Shakespeare Together thread I should get running again. You got a favorite "Falstaff moment?" Mine is either the role-play with Hal in IV i, or "We have heard the chimes at midnight, Master Shallow" in IV ii. And I would totally be down for a Shakespeare reading thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 01:19
|
|
|
Favourite Falstaff moment: when he takes credit for Hotspur's death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 02:55
|
|
|
Blind Sally posted:Favourite Falstaff moment: when he takes credit for Hotspur's death. Definitely a great scene. In Orson Welles' Chimes at Midnight (a must for any Falstaff fan), that scene is portrayed as kind of a turning point for Hal. Falstaff's trying to steal the credit genuinely wounds him, and right there he definitively decides to abandon plump Jack. It's an interesting interpretation, but I don't really buy it. Hal's basically a sociopath, in my opinion. Everything he does is coldly calculated, up to and including his marriage to Anne of France. He's basically a more successful Iago. That, and nobody would actually believe that Falstaff killed Hotspur in battle. Hotspur's a great character too, come to think of it. The Henriad is just full of these awesome side characters. Bardolph is great too, as are Pistol, Mistress Quickly, Doll Tearsheet, and Master Shallow. Oh, and Fluellen! Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 04:29 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Apologies because this isn't related to Falstaff. I teach Shakespeare in my English classes and I have to say that a lot of the disdain for him in the younger set comes from the fact that his works are often read silently rather than watched (like they should be). I actually think that it's much more effective for most to watch him performed. I didn't understand Twelfth Night at all as a 17-year old and found it confusing as hell until I actually saw it and thought it was hilarious. Agreeing with most of this so hard - except I always adored and got Twelfth Night (and As You Like It) because they were the gender-bending plays, and those tended to be me among my absolute favorite. But your point about early Shakespeare plays being really wonderful and fun when you see them live? Absolutely true. I remember in high school, in my Sophomore year we did a production of Comedy of Errors - definitely one of the lesser works in his canon, possibly the least in terms of depth? I'm not going to argue the point either way. What I'm saying is that a bunch of 14-17 year-olds putting on a production of it was a *tremendous* amount of fun for everyone involved, and the audience legitimately enjoyed it, I mean, it was high school theater but we had a rather ambitious director (we did a production of Marat/Sade later that year too - high school kids doing that play, seriously). But yeah - I'd never recommend A Comedy of Errors as a play for someone to read, but I'd absolutely recommend someone to go see a good production of it, is the point I think I'm making. Even the sonnets deserve to be read aloud. I'll probably go on and on about the sonnets at, uh, some point in the thread unless I'm hopelessly shouted down. I've always found them beautiful and mysterious and fascinating all at once.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
kaworu posted:Even the sonnets deserve to be read aloud. I'll probably go on and on about the sonnets at, uh, some point in the thread unless I'm hopelessly shouted down. I've always found them beautiful and mysterious and fascinating all at once. I'd love to hear someone knowledgeable talk about the Sonnets. I'm shamefully ignorant of pretty much everything Shakespeare did that wasn't a play. I've never even tried to read the Rape of Lucrece, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 04:28
|
|
|
Iago is a wonderful character to be introduced to when you're 16 or so, as a heads-up that there are people like that out there. He's also one of my favourite characters in literature. To address a thing the OP touched on, I never saw Iago as attracted to Othello; if anything, Iago is utterly in love with his idea of himself as Mr. Awesome, so much cleverer than everyone else, and is unable to see why Othello didn't promote him. The way he sets out to manipulate everyone around him to their detriment, while charming the audience with his honest monologues, is the model for a mini-genre (think Francis Urquhart/Frank Underwood, or various villains in Christopher Brookmyre's entertaining books) and an astonishingly good sketch of a sociopath.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:40
|
|
|
kaworu posted:we did a production of Comedy of Errors - definitely one of the lesser works in his canon, possibly the least in terms of depth? I'm not going to argue the point either way. Not that you're arguing it, but I'd put The Winter's Tale down there, sort of like "The Tempest, if The Tempest sucked." Although it's almost saved by "Exit [Antigonus], pursued by a bear."
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 12:42
|
|
|
I was just in a production of Twelfth Night, after really not being into Shakespeare at all, but actually acting out the lines really gave me an appreciation for the art in them. Absolute pain the arse to learn it, and, being Feste, half my lines started off as incomprehensible nonsense that slowly took form throughout. One thing I had noticed since reading more of his work - The dude really really loved Shipwrecks and mistaken identities. Guy was crazy for that poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Beefeater1980 posted:Not that you're arguing it, but I'd put The Winter's Tale down there, sort of like "The Tempest, if The Tempest sucked." Although it's almost saved by "Exit [Antigonus], pursued by a bear." Fie upon thee! The Winter's Tale rules, you just have to get into its rhythms. It can be sorta boring if you're not on its wavelength. It's got some fantastic poetry, though, and I find the pastoral sequences really quite lovely. And more than "The Tempest, if the Tempest sucked," I think it's like "Othello, if Othello had a happy ending." As far as bad Shakespeare goes, though, I'd like to nominate The Merry Wives of Windsor as the worst work in his canon. It's a disgrace what he does to Falstaff in that one.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:One thing I had noticed since reading more of his work - The dude really really loved Shipwrecks and mistaken identities. Guy was crazy for that poo poo. Haha, I know what you mean. Shipwrecks: Twelfth Night, The Tempest, The Comedy of Errors (these three are sometimes referred to as the 'Shipwreck Trilogy'), Hamlet (sorta), The Merchant of Venice. Mistaken Identity: Whoof, this is gonna be long. Hamlet, Henry IV Part I, Twelfth Night, The Comedy of Errors, The Merchant of Venice, King Lear, Measure for Measure, Much Ado about Nothing, Othello . . . I'm sure there are more.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 18:38
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:I'd love to hear someone knowledgeable talk about the Sonnets. I'm shamefully ignorant of pretty much everything Shakespeare did that wasn't a play. I've never even tried to read the Rape of Lucrece, for example. Well... I don't know how "knowledgable" I am about the sonnets, per se. I've read them and read a certain amount about them. It's somewhat difficult to discuss the sonnets without touching on the subject of Shakespeare's sexuality; that being said, it's still an absolute mystery as to whether the sonnets reflect any aspect of Shakespeare's life. There is definite continuity and specific characters which are dealt with in the sonnets (although only three of them besides The Poet over 154 sonnets - The Fair Youth, The Rival Poet, and The Dark Lady) and it's reasonable that the character of the Poet was intended to be Shakespeare given the amount of punning on his name, particularly in a specific poem that I can recall. In any case, I'll admit that one of the reasons why I was initially interested enough in the sonnets to read them was because of the evident homoeroticism, and I remember reading them as a teenager for the first time, and like everyone I had always assumed that they were strictly heterosexual in nature, so I was rather shocked when I discovered that easily the most well-known of them (Sonnet 18, "Shall I compare thee....") is written from the perspective of a man, to another man. In fact, that exact sonnet is the moment (within the narrative of the sonnets) when the relationship between the Poet and the Fair Youth begins to have overt romantic overtones; Sonnets 1 through 17 are also addressed to the Fair Youth, but generally consist of exhortations for him to marry and beget children, with the homoeroticism much more buried. But after Sonnet 18 the tone definitely changes, and Sonnet 20 is easily one of the most fascinating of the bunch, as well as another one of the most well-known. I'm generally surprised how little-known it is that Sonnets 1 through 126 are all addressed to the Fair Youth - 127 through 154 are written to the character of the Dark Lady. They're all great, though, and the contrast between the two sets of poems is quite significant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
You ever thought about the contrast between "Shall I compare thee to a Summers' Day?" and "My Mistress' Eyes are Nothing Like the Sun?" One's written to the fair youth, the other to the dark lady, and they seem to express completely opposite poetic visions. In one, the author says that his lover outstrips all these beauteous natural images, in the other he basically says "yeah, I'm not gonna bullshit you by comparing you to all this stuff in nature. Obviously roses are sweeter than you, but that doesn't mean you're not awesome." I wonder if Shakespeare was thinking about one when he wrote the other, and if it reflects an evolution in his opinion of certain kinds of rhetoric, or if it is more a function of the difference in his feelings for the DL and the FY.
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
kaworu posted:But yeah - I'd never recommend A Comedy of Errors as a play for someone to read, but I'd absolutely recommend someone to go see a good production of it, is the point I think I'm making. It's a great play for busting the idea that Shakespeare has to be stuffy and respectable and dull. It's a magnificent farce, and as long as it's played for what it is and not what people would like it to be, it's impossible not to have fun watching it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:41
|
|
|
Trin Tragula posted:It's a great play for busting the idea that Shakespeare has to be stuffy and respectable and dull. It's a magnificent farce, and as long as it's played for what it is and not what people would like it to be, it's impossible not to have fun watching it. This is 100% true, although for my money Titus Andronicus is the funniest Shakespeare play.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
Captain Mog posted:Apologies because this isn't related to Falstaff. I teach Shakespeare in my English classes and I have to say that a lot of the disdain for him in the younger set comes from the fact that his works are often read silently rather than watched (like they should be). I actually think that it's much more effective for most to watch him performed. I didn't understand Twelfth Night at all as a 17-year old and found it confusing as hell until I actually saw it and thought it was hilarious. How do you feel about the modern take on it with copious amounts of Leonardo DiCaprio? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:52
|
|
|
AYC posted:How do you feel about the modern take on it with copious amounts of Leonardo DiCaprio? That's the Baz Luhrmann one. It's virtues were debated above. Basically, I think it's a travesty, but an awesome one. It's so crass and gaudy, but it's really fun and funny and I think a lot of the performances are really good (Pete Postlethwait, Clare Danes. Not Leo. He wasn't good yet).
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
Speaking of Romeo & Juliet, is the standard modern interpretation of "Biting my thumb at you" as being equal to "flipping you off" accurate?
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure it is. It's an insulting gesture, and I'm not aware of any other interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 01:09
|
|
|
To continue the R+J discussion, I've found that it seems to be in vogue among hip young literary sorts these days to be totally down on that play. They'll say things like "Oh, it's just about a couple of stupid teenagers who kill themselves for no reason. Nothing romantic about that." This, in my opinion, is cynical, contrarian nonsense. It's like people who hate on Catcher in the Rye because "Holden is a brat" (no poo poo he is.) To expand: - The text is fully aware that Romeo and Juliet are somewhat foolish. The play is, at least on one level, a cautionary tale. - Cautionary tale aside, Juliet speaks some of the best, most sophisticated love poetry ever written. Fact. - If you don't think Mercutio is fun you're dead inside.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:47
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:To continue the R+J discussion, I've found that it seems to be in vogue among hip young literary sorts these days to be totally down on that play. They'll say things like "Oh, it's just about a couple of stupid teenagers who kill themselves for no reason. Nothing romantic about that." This, in my opinion, is cynical, contrarian nonsense. It's like people who hate on Catcher in the Rye because "Holden is a brat" (no poo poo he is.) To expand: Eh, the complaints I've heard are more about the language. Like, quote:Now Romeo is beloved and loves again, We go straight from the admittedly charming scene where Romeo compares Juliet to a saint, to Juliet being compared to a fish. Falstaff Infection posted:- If you don't think Mercutio is fun you're dead inside. This is true. My favorite interpretation is that he's an older, wiser friend of Romeo who is also suffering from PTSD.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 19:49
|
|
|
Isn't it generally agreed that we appreciate Shakespeare more for his language than his plots? R&J seems to be the prime example of this.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
AYC posted:Isn't it generally agreed that we appreciate Shakespeare more for his language than his plots? R&J seems to be the prime example of this. Yes, that's generally correct I think. And R+J includes some spectacular examples of language. Juliet's speech in III,ii ("Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds[.]") for example, is pretty masterful. It's lush and erotic but also sort of philosophically pragmatic. So R & J haters are truly missing out, in my opinion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
AYC posted:Isn't it generally agreed that we appreciate Shakespeare more for his language than his plots? R&J seems to be the prime example of this. I dunno, man, it's the intermingling of both that appeal to me. The intrigue in the histories, the pathos in the tragedies--not all of his plays blow my mind, but those that do definitely are a combination of clever story-telling and clever use of language. The plot doesn't necessarily have to be deep, but it's well told. King Lear, for example.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2014 05:55
|
|
|
Blind Sally posted:I dunno, man, it's the intermingling of both that appeal to me. The intrigue in the histories, the pathos in the tragedies--not all of his plays blow my mind, but those that do definitely are a combination of clever story-telling and clever use of language. The plot doesn't necessarily have to be deep, but it's well told. King Lear, for example. This is true as well, but you definitely have to approach his plots from a certain "theatre-logic" angle, or at the very least suspend some of your modern values. For all the talk of how "universal" WS' work is, something like, Lear, for example, depends heavily on the logic of monarchy in order to achieve its tragic oomph. I recently re-read the play, paying specific attention to the plot as opposed to the language (which of course is incredible), and came to the conclusion that Regan and Goneril, from a modern POV, weren't thaaaaaat bad. Like, Cordelia was leading an invading French army into England (and she was laying plans to do so even before Lear was tossed out into the heath.) And also its not like they actually *forced* Lear out onto the heath-- he just got pissy and threw a fit, and then went mad after one night in the rain. Sure, gouging out Gloucester's eyes was ugly, but do you think Lear himself was any more forgiving of treason or his subjects plotting with foreign powers? Again, I'm not saying that any of these elements really weaken the play. I was just reading it from a deliberately literal and obtuse point of view for larfs. Ultimately, you just have to embrace its internal logic in order for it to work as a tragedy (which it does.) Falstaff Infection fucked around with this message at 01:40 on Dec 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:38
|
|
|
I mean, as much as I love the language in his work, the plots are pretty spotty. A huge number of the plots rely on people never questioning a single thing around them, or else not noticing very obvious signs of things going on. In Twelfth Night Olivia manages to marry a dude who she thinks is an entirely different person, with an entirely different name, without ever realizing its not Viola. Actually, maybe its just cause I spent like, 3 months of my life on that play, but lots of things jump out as kinda weird and nonsensical (Feste and Fabian switch places a handful of times for no real reason, there's clearly an unmentioned time skip somewhere between the shipwreck, Viola joining Orsino's court and Sebastian entering the city, among many others). I mean you'd find any of these weird things in any given work of fiction, but I guess it stands out more when you find them in what is supposed to be a legendary part of the canon. As a quick aside - My cast members and I had a brief chat during the play about how Twelfth can be read and played as a play that messes with gender and sexuality and queer issues. Orsino falls in love with what he thinks is a boy, and even continues to call him Boy even after Viola reveals everything and, similarly, Olivia falls for a woman whom she thinks is a man. What do you guys feel about applying modern political talking points to ole' Shakey? I feel like it helps the plays retain a certain connection with our world, but I found some of my cast mates genuinely wondering if it was author-intended to be questioning the morals of it's time, despite the fact that it's clearly supposed to be farcical.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 01:57
|
|
|
Nemesis Of Moles posted:
Keep in mind that Shakespeare was what we would today call bisexual (although such categories did not really exist in Elizabethan times), so it's really not that hard to think that all the cross-dressing in his plays was actually meant to be a sly attack on mainstream beliefsa bout gender roles or sexuality. In the end, though, it doesn't matter if the author intended it or not-- if it's in the text it's in the text, and is therefore a perfectly valid interpretation. Authors don't have final say on what their works mean. In fact, I think it's almost impossible to put on a good production of Twelfth Night *without* addressing the queer subtext (actually, sub nothing, it's practically text. See also-- Antonio and Bassanio in Merchant of Venice.) This is also why I enjoy post-colonial readings of The Tempest.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:35
|
|
|
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm all about death of the author, I'm just saying its kinda neat how often these readings get applied to Shakespeare.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 02:40
|
|
|
Falstaff Infection posted:Keep in mind that Shakespeare was what we would today call bisexual This is hardly an established fact.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 04:36
|
|
|
Well, the fair young man sequence in the Sonnets seems to be fairly definitive, and if you couple it with the Dark Lady sonnets it points strongly an author who is sexually attracted to men and women. Then again, I guess that assumes that the Sonnets were autobiographical, which I guess is not necessarily the case. Still, the level of eroticism he pours into some of those poems makes it hard for me to see them as anything but frank and genuine expressions of desire.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 20:25 |
|
|
I mean: A woman's face with nature's own hand painted, Hast thou, the master mistress of my passion; A woman's gentle heart, but not acquainted With shifting change, as is false women's fashion: An eye more bright than theirs, less false in rolling, Gilding the object whereupon it gazeth; A man in hue all hues in his controlling, Which steals men's eyes and women's souls amazeth. And for a woman wert thou first created; Till Nature, as she wrought thee, fell a-doting, And by addition me of thee defeated, By adding one thing to my purpose nothing. But since she prick'd thee out for women's pleasure, Mine be thy love and thy love's use their treasure.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2014 05:19
|
|