Re: Sonnet 18
book...@yahoo.com
<dsfds...@sdfsfsfs.com> wrote:
>X-No-archive: yes
>1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
>2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
>3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
>4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
>5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
>6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
>7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
>8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
>9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
>10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
>11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
>12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
>13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
>14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
>
>This poem is recognised as one of the most
>beautiful of the sonnets and nothing I say
>below should be taken as detracting from its
>qualities as a poem -- in the abstract manner
>in which is it conventionally read. The poet
>intended that reading. But he could not have
>achieved it -- and the rest of its beauty --
>without building it upon a structure of multi-
>layered meanings (nearly all which he made
>obscure to the naive reader).
The poet intentionally made the meaning obscure, multi-layered
meanings.
>I do not know why this this poetic technique
>works so well -- in the hands of a great poet.
>I'm sure that no one else knows, nor has ever
>known -- not even the poet himself. All we
>can say is that it does. The formula appears
>to be: encode density of meaning to the
>maximum possible extent, while respecting
>grammar, metre and verse, and leave the rest
>to the magic of the language.
The technique, or formula, maximizes density of meaning.
>We do not have to understand those multi-
>layered meanings in order to appreciate that
>the poem is beautiful, but that appreciation
>will be only of its top-most layer. It is
>analogous to the love children have for
>nursery rhymes.
The deeper layers of meaning are not nursery rhymes for children.
>
>Our poet also seemed to apply the rule that
>he would only encode public meanings, or
>those which would be available to posterity
>as, nearly always, his images seem to have
>such an origin; he has left us plenty of
>clues as to their source.
I can see how this approach lends itself very well to "discovering" in
poems one's own intended reading, as if Shakespeare's sonnets can be
decoded as they were encoded, cherry-picking among intentionally
layered meanings. It's wonderful how you can do this, despite the
well recognized caveats about the intentional fallacy.
>1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
>
>The comparison of a person to a summer's
>day is extraordinary -- almost magical.
My guess is that comparisons of a loved one's features and the loved
one to other things was conventional, even satirized by comedians, and
the poet must have played on this situation, perhaps for some reason.
So you get a "+" for that.
>It is
>commonly regarded as a supreme example of
>Shakespeare's poetic imagination -- as, indeed,
>it is. Helen Vendler writes: "What is the most
>beautiful thing, the 'summum bonum', in an
>(English) world? -- A summer's day."
>
>The poet was teasing us. He knew that was
>how we would read it (and the whole sonnet)
>but in his mind he had other aspects of "a
>summer's day". One is the transient nature of
>its existence. Think of it in the context of his
>adored's beauty. Would she have wished that it
>last but a day?
>
>The comparison is far from 'pure imagination'.
>Shakespeare's genius lay in knowing how to
>recruit into his poetry images he encountered
>in other circumstances. The poet and his
>addressee knew of another beauty, that did
>gloriously, but briefly, flower; and it is to this
>he asks: 'Shall I compare thee . . ?'.
Before launching into biographical allusions, you might consider that
the poet is treating on a theme of mutability, how time erases all,
but love (his poetry) endures.
>It is not too difficult to guess to whom the
>phrase 'Summers day' refers -- once we know
>that the addressee of the sonnet was Queen
>Elizabeth, and to whom she was constantly
>compared during the early years of her reign:
>Mary, Queen of Scots.
"We" don't know that, because we didn't get the code book and ring
with a compass in it, I suppose.
>The poet wrote of her often, of the
>extraordinary people surrounding her and
>of the dreadful events in which they became
>entangled. He established a distinct code.
>Darnley was indicated by 'somer', the name
>of the tall thin pole that formed the main
>support in medieval houses. (Both Mary
>and Darnley were unusually tall and thin.)
>
>'Day' was pronounced much the same as
>'die', as it still is in Cockney London; and
>a 'die' or a 'death' was an orgasm. So, the
>phrase: "summer's day" meant a "Darnley's
>fuck": "Shall I compare thee to a Darnley's
>fuck?"
I suppose you are right to include the multiple meanings of "die" in
an interpretation of "summer's day," but where Darnley comes from must
be your code book.
>
>I strongly suspect that there was a particular
>and immediate source for 'a Summers day',
>and I describe a possibility in a final note.
>
>
>2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
>
>Of course, Elizabeth comes off much more
>favourably in this comparison. The poet
>meant 'lovely' to be taken by his addressee
>in the usual sense, but he had others also in
>mind. 'Lovely' had a wider range of meanings
>at the time, with its oldest senses being:
>'loving, kind, affectionate'; 'amorous'; and
>'friendly, amicable' (see OED). Taken in this
>sense, the comparison was barbed.
>
>Edward VI had famously called Elizabeth his
>"sweet sister Temperance", probably meaning
>that she was less ardent in her Protestantism
>than him. But it was a virtue she sought all
>her life. Recent events had shown it was one
>which Mary, Queen of Scots, most conspicuously
>lacked. The poet may also have been referring
>to elaborate plans for a meeting between the
>two queens about four years previously (in 1562):
>
>"In London the prospect of the encounter was considered
>sufficiently certain for the actual masques to be devised which
>were to entertain the two queens, the chosen allegorical theme
>being the punishment of False Report and Discord by Jupiter
>at the request of Prudence and Temperance. The detailed and
>long-winded plans for the masques -- three nights of them -- were
>vetted personally by Cecil and much courtly care was exercised
>in the delicate task of balancing the allegorical compliments to
>both royal ladies . . " (Antonia Fraser *Mary QS* page 168)
>
>
>3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
>
>This sonnet was written around April 1566
>after the first 'rough patch' endured by Mary
>-- the murder of David Riccio (on 9 March)
>by her husband, King Henry (Darnley), Lord
>Ruthven and several more of the Protestant
>nobility:
>
>" . . a few minutes later there was a far more astonishing apparition
>up the staircase -- Patrick Lord Ruthven, with a steel cap on, and
>with his armour showing through his gown, burning-eyed and pale
>from the illness of which he was generally thought to be dying on
>his sick-bed in a house close to Holyrood. So amazing was his
>emergence at the queen's supper party, that the first reaction of
>those present was that he was actually delirious, and had somehow
>felt himself pursued, in his fever, by the spectre of one of his victims.
>[ as in Macbeth -- PC ] Ruthven -- who did in fact die three months
>after these events took place -- was a highly unsavoury character,
>popularly supposed to be a warlock or male witch, or at any rate in
>Knox's phrase to 'use enchantment'. However, his first words left the
>queen in no doubt as to what had brought this death's head to her
>feast. 'Let it please your Majesty,' said Ruthven, 'that yonder man
>David come forth of your privy-chamber where he hath been overlong.'
>Mary replied with astonishment that Riccio was there at her own royal
>wish, and asked Ruthven whether he had taken leave of his senses. . ."
>(op. cit. page 252.)
>
>> 3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
>
>'May' is (or was until recently) a common
>abbreviation for 'Mary'. 'Rough winds' is
>based on 'Ruth-ven'. 'Ruth' was a contemporary
>Scottish form of 'rough' (see OED under 'ruth',
>'routh' and 'rough'); the poet takes 'ven' as
>based on 'vent' = 'wind' in French (pronounced
>without the 't').
>
>Another sense is that some windy (or
>wordy) persons had turned rough.
>
>" . . Damiot talked of his unpopularity. Riccio said grandly:
>'Parole, parole, nothing but words. The Scots will boast but
>rarely perform their brags.' Mary took the same line. Melville
>tried to warn her also of what was going on . . . Mary replied
>that something of the sort had also come to her own ears, but
>she had paid no attention since 'our countrymen were well-
>wordy' . ." (op. cit. page 249.)
>
>There is a minor pun on 'darling/Darnley'
>'Darling Darnley' had highly effeminate looks
>and had been young and pretty enough, at
>least until recently. Also Mary was a keen
>'darner', famous for her embroidery.
>
>> 3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
>
>The line expresses a gloriously bawdy theme.
>Mary is portrayed in the act of sex with Darnley
>being roughly shaken, their limbs wound around
>each other (in the 'rough windes'). At the time
>the 'wind' was pronounced to rhyme with 'mind',
>'find' or 'bind', making the pun more obvious.
>
>'Rough' may also allude to Darnley's known
>behaviour when copulating (or perhaps it's a
>guess based on his general conduct). 'Buds'
>probably has a variety of references: her breasts
>would be vigorously shaken in the act of sex,
>and also later when she had to ride fast over-
>night to Dunbar, in her escape from the
>conspirators who had killed Riccio.
>
>The line is an astonishing combination of the
>meteorological /horticultural and the political,
>both set against a gloriously bawdy image of
>the entwined royal couple writhing in passion.
>
>
>4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
>
>'All too short a date' refers to the sudden end
>of David Riccio in both the obvious sense and
>in other ways. His shortness of stature and his
>ugliness were well-known. Mary was remarkably
>tall to those times, and Darnley was even taller.)
>Also the poet commonly bawdily puns on 'all' =
>'awl' = 'penis'. He may be implying (in 'all too
>short') that Riccio's penis was too short for the
>Queen.
>
>'Date' was a Scottish word: 'to pet, fondle, caress,
>make much of'. See OED under 'daut'. (This sense
>is almost certainly related to the modern 'date' as
>a romantic appointment.)
>
>'Sommer' here is also Darnley, and lease was
>another spelling of 'leash'. The poet envisages
>Darnley whipping Riccio. 'Lease' is also meant
>in a more regular sense: Darnley had simply
>run out of patience with Riccio, and with his
>wife.
>
>A broader sense of line 4 may also be
>addressed to Elizabeth. If she was to have an
>heir of her body, she needed to get on with it.
>
>
>5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
>
>The 'eye of heaven' is the sun -- a symbol of
>royalty. Here the poet beautifully exploits the
>bawdy potential of a 'hot' and a royal 'eye'
>opening into a royal 'heaven' -- alluding, of
>course, to the intensity of Mary's sexual
>passion in her brief marriage with Darnley, and
>the allegations of an affair with Riccio. 'Shines'
>may reflect the sense of 'taking a shine' -- even
>if the OED does not record this until 1848.
>
>
>6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
>
>Line 5 refers to the Queen (in a sexual passion);
>line 6 to the King. "Dimm'd" alludes mostly to
>(a) his successive apparent changes in religion
>(see below) (b) his bouts of furious anger,
>(c) his 'eclipse' by Riccio, (d) his regular
>shortages of cash, and (e) his frequent illnesses
>probably from syphilis, pock-marking his face;
>see a dramatic image of a 'gold complexion'
>being dimmed at:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3301479.stm
>
>'Complexion' often meant religious affiliation at
>the time, and 'gold' is the Papal colour. Darnley
>had been brought up a Catholic but he started
>off in Scotland as Protestant (absenting himself
>from the nuptial mass for his wedding); he then
>apparently reverted to Catholicism, attending
>midnight Mass at Christmas 1565 (while Mary
>played cards). At the feast of the Purification
>of the Virgin Mary on 2 Feb 1566, with Mary, he
>carried lighted tapers through the streets of
>Edinburgh -- a notably Catholic gesture -- which
>would have lit up his complexion. That light
>was then dimmed by his plot with the Protestant
>nobles to murder Riccio and seize power from
>Mary. She then persuaded him to join with her
>in the suppression of those same nobles.
>
>Darnley was addressed as 'King Henry' but he
>was essentially only a consort. Even though
>he had little interest in administration, he
>constantly demanded the 'crown matrimonial'
>which would grant him power equal to Mary
>while she lived and would have continued
>after her death if he survived her. Mary and
>the Scottish parliament would not grant this,
>leading to rows about the manner in which
>they should sign documents and, in particular,
>on the way their images should be presented
>on coins.
>
>"Certainly her violent infatuation for Darnley had not survived
>the onsets of pregnancy, and she could after all no longer share
>the pleasures of hunting and hawking which both had once
>enjoyed so keenly. On 20 December, Bedford from Berwick
>reported that, 'The Lord Darnley followeth his pastimes more
>than the Queen is content withal; what it will breed hereafter
>I cannot say, but in the meantime there is some misliking
>between them.' On 25 December Randolph noted that 'a while
>ago there was nothing but King and Queen, now the Queen's
>husband is the common word. He was wont in all writings to be
>first named: now he is placed second.' The relative placing of
>the two names Henry and Mary was at the heart of the
>mysterious matter of the silver 'ryal', a new denomination of
>coin introduced shortly after their marriage at a nominal value
>of thirty shillings. This 'ryal' showed the heads of Mary and
>Darnley facing each other on one side, and on the other in
>Latin a reference to their marriage - 'Whom God has joined
>together, let no man put asunder'. In December Randolph also
>reported that this coin had been withdrawn from circulation in
>Scotland, because the names of the royal pair were engraved on
>it in an unusual order as HENRICUS & MARIA D. GRA. R & R.
>SCOTORUM. Randolph represented Mary as now regretting
>the prominence given to Darnley's name, which for once
>preceded that of the queen. " (Antonia Fraser *Mary QS*
>page 240)
>
>The 'dimming of the gold complexion' is
>probably also a reference to the dispute
>about these images, with the poet thinking
>of gold coins.
>
>
>7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
>
>The decline of 'faire from faire' refers mainly to
>the deterioration of the royal marriage. Both
>Mary and Darnley were known for their striking
>beauty. ("In these portraits Darnley appears at
>first sight like a young god, with his golden hair,
>his perfectly shaped face with its short straight
>nose, the neat oval chin . ." -- op. cit. page 220.)
>It would also refer to the erosion of beauty with
>age and illness, with particular reference to that
>of Darnley, Mary and Elizabeth.
>
>
>8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
>
>Both Mary and Darnley were known for their
>addiction to card-playing and gambling -- as
>was not uncommon among courtiers of the
>day. 'Chance' or 'hazard' was a card game often
>played by courtiers. The poet is suggesting
>that a major reason for the decline in the
>marriage was Darnley's generally dissolute
>behaviour, particularly during Mary's pregnancy.
>
>Another reason for the decline was 'natures
>changing course' -- where 'nature' is Mary (or
>Elizabeth, or women generally). 'Untrimmed'
>alludes viciously to the knife used to 'trim'
>Riccio. (He had ~60 stab wounds, the fatal
>ones probably from Darnley's dagger, wielded
>by a Douglas relation.)
>
>'Untrimmed' is also IMO used in a political
>sense (even if the OED's first report in this
>sense is 1682). OED 5 'trimmer' = 'one who
>inclines to each of two opposite sides as
>interest dictates'. Darnley seemed to exist by
>'trimming' (even if a hopelessly ill-directed
>version), and Mary had shown plenty of
>devious 'trimming' in order to escape from her
>captors.
>
>'Untrimmed' also had a bawdy sense. 'To
>trim' was to deflower or possess a woman.
>
>AARON (TA V.1.89) . . .
> 'Twas her two sons that murder'd Bassianus;
> They cut thy sister's tongue and ravish'd her
> And cut her hands and trimm'd her as thou saw'st.
>LUCIUS O detestable villain! call'st thou that trimming?
>AARON Why, she was wash'd and cut and trimm'd, and 'twas
> Trim sport for them that had the doing of it.
>
>> 7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
>> 8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
>
>The poet is also alluding to Elizabeth's
>behaviour since coming to the throne -- of
>turning down numerous proposals of marriage
>He is, as ever, warning of the danger of this
>conduct -- faire England will decline its
>'untrimmed' faire queen.
>
>
>9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
>
>The sestet focuses more on the English
>Queen, but with allusions to Scotland, as
>in 'fade' which was a Scottish form of 'feud'
>at the time (see OED). States and monarchies
>did not fade away; but they were destroyed
>by feuds.
>
>'Eternal' had another sense: a derogatory one
>(which it still retains) for a period of time that
>has lasted much longer than it should. Here
>Oxford is being sarcastic. He shared the
>common feeling that the duration of Elizabeth's
>'summer' had become unconscionable. Mary's
>pregnancy had emphasised the lack of
>seriousness in Elizabeth's conduct in the
>1560s, in particular the slow, reluctant manner
>in which she 'sought' a husband.
>
>
>10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
>
>'Owe' also meant 'own' -- and our poet must
>necessarily pun on it. The 'faire' that Elizabeth
>both owned and owed was her virginity -- and
>through that -- her realm. The poet is implying
>that her continued possession of the former
>will destroy that of the latter. She owed England
>duties -- which she was not performing.
>
>
>11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
>
>There is a reflection back to the dreadful
>events in Scotland. The poet hopes that his
>own queen will never see violent death
>visited on her favourites in her presence.
>
>The line hints at the bawdy sense of 'small
>death' (orgasm); i.e. the Queen will not
>enjoy this, if she is relying on poetry for her
>immortality.
>
>
>12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
>
>These lines have a scolding tone. Like the
>rest of the nation, he desperately wanted her
>to marry and have an heir, and grow in 'loins'
>and in family lines of descent, rather than
>just in lines of poetry. 'Eternal' is again
>used ambiguously.
>
>
>13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
>
>The two 'long's of the couplet pun on the
>'long couple' (Darnley and Mary both being
>remarkable for their height and slenderness).
>
>" . . her height, when described, is always commented on with
>admiration. This may be in part due to the fact that, although tall,
>Mary had extremely delicate bones . . . combined to give an
>appearance of graceful elongation: it also made her an excellent
>dancer . . in a manner calculated to dazzle the public eye at a
>time when the personal image of a sovereign was of marked
>consequence. . ." (op. cit. page 77.)
>" . . It was Darnley's height which was considered at the time to
>be his main physical characteristic -- had not Elizabeth called him
>'yon long lad' when she pointed him out to Melville? -- and he
>was fortunate in being slender with it, or as Melville put it, 'long
>and small, even and straight'. His elegant physique could hardly
>fail to commend itself to Mary for two reasons. Firstly, beautiful
>as she was, Mary was nevertheless tall enough to tower over most
>of her previous companions, including her first husband Francis.
>The psychological implications of this height can only be guessed
>at, but as Darnley was certainly well over six feet one inch . . "
>(op. cit. page 221.)
>
>> 13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
>
>The double 'longs' of the couplet represent
>the 'long couple'. The first line is about the
>King, and his victim, Riccio, 'breathing' his
>last through 'eyes' made by those 60 knife
>wounds. Those 'eyes' saw terror and murder
>-- the result of disastrous management of
>the state. That fate threatened England
>almost as much.
>
>The poet believes that more deaths are
>likely to follow (including that of Darnley?)
>in the desperate confusion of Scottish
>politics, created largely by Mary's intemperate
>decision to marry him. The future is uncertain:
>'so long . . as eyes can see'. There is a pun
>on 'eyes/Ays', with (Och) 'Ays' = Scotsmen.
>
>
>14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
>
>The 'this' of line 14 refers to the Queen of
>Scots. She will live as long as she escapes
>murder. Also, so long as she lives, Elizabeth's
>throne is safe. (The English would never
>remove Elizabeth while Mary was next in line.)
>In another sense, Mary was carrying a child.
>That 'life' would, in due course, succeed
>Elizabeth.
>
>
> NOTE on "The Queen of Hearts"
>
>I believe that it is quite probable that the
>nursery rhyme:
>
> "The Queen of Hearts baked some tarts
> All on a Summer's day . . "
>
>came from the events of the second half
>of 1565, and that it is the poet's source of
>"a Summer's day".
>
>The rhyme first appears in print in 1805, but
>no queen, before or since Mary QS, had a
>better claim to the title 'Queen of Hearts'.
>She was immensely popular with her people
>in the early 1560s, being young, beautiful,
>full of life, charm and good humour, and in
>1565 she was in the process of giving them
>an heir to the throne. English noses were
>somewhat out of joint as a result, especially
>because of the intense concern over the
>absence of an heir to Elizabeth -- other than
>Mary herself, who was feared and detested
>on account of being Catholic, French and
>a Guise.
>
>However, with the disastrous marriage to
>Darnley, followed by its entirely predictable
>decline, the English were, for the first time,
>in a position to make fun of her, of her
>vicious, if foppish, husband, and of her
>Italian 'lover'.
>
>"Regardless of the fact that Lennox and Darnley had gone
>north with her express permission, Elizabeth exploded with
>anger and demanded their instant return. When neither paid
>any attention to her angry bulletins, Throckmorton was sent
>north to dissuade Mary from the disastrous, nay, menacing
>course of marrying Darnley. Mary in Scotland was in no state
>to listen to the advice of even the sagest counsellor. Love
>was rampant in her heart for the first time, and she could hear
>no other voice except the dictates of her own passionate
>feelings. In the words of a poem of the period, it was a case
>of 'O lusty May, with Flora Queen' at the court of Scotland.
>Randolph wrote back to Leicester in anguish of his 'poor
>Queen whom ever before I esteemed so worthy, so wise, so
>honourable in all her doings', now so altered by love that he
>could hardly recognize her." (op. cit. page 227.)
>
>The phrase 'baked some tarts' would have
>been meant bawdily. The Knave of Hearts
>(who stole the tarts) was David Riccio, and
>the King of Hearts was Darnley. Again, no
>king before or after Darnley better suits that
>title -- being young, beautiful, and violent.
>And it is doubtful if a knave (fit for beating)
>better than Riccio can be found.
>
>The rhyme would have been become popular
>before the murder of Riccio. That crime is
>unlikely to have been the subject of such light-
>hearted verse or, if it had been, we'd expect a
>stronger reference. The 'beating' in the rhyme
>may have been based on another known one
>by Darnley or it may simply have reflected his
>notorious character.
>
>"Randolph reported [in May 1565] that Darnley was now
>grown so proud that he was intolerable to all honest men,
>and already almost forgetful of his duty to Mary -- she who
>had adventured so much for his sake. Darnley's health had
>taken an unconscionable long time to recover, and even
>while on his sick-bed he had struck the ageing duke of
>Chātelherault on his pate to avenge some fancied slight."
>(op. cit. page 227.)
>
>Darnley's pride waxed with the queen's affection: to show
>his virility, he launched out characteristically with blows
>towards those who he knew would not dare to retaliate.
>On the day in May [1565] on which he was created earl of
>Ross, he drew his dagger on the wretched justice clerk who
>brought him the message, because he was not also made
>duke of Albany as he had expected. It was the typical
>gesture of the spoilt and vindictive child. By the beginning
>of July, Darnley was held in such general contempt that
>even those who had been his chief friends could no longer
>find words to defend him. Randolph made the gloomy, but
>as it proved singularly accurate, prophecy: 'I know not,
>but it is greatly to be feared that he can have no long life
>among these people' . .". (op. cit. page 228.)
>
>The Queen of Hearts,
>She made some tarts,
>All on a summer's day;
>The Knave of hearts,
>He stole those tarts,
>And took them clean away.
>
>The King of Hearts
>Called for the tarts,
>And beat the knave full sore;
>The Knave of hearts
>Brought back the tarts,
>And vowed he'd steal no more.
>
>
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
> >3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
> >4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
> >5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
> >6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
> >7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
> >8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
> >9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
> >10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
> >11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
> >12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
> >13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
> >14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
Whew, not much to work with. The poet is comparing someone to summer
who is superior to it in beauty and temperament. Moreover, this
person will not fade like summer but live eternally in this poem that
the person has inspired. A paraphrase (not particularly well
expressed, so I'll work on it). But there is much more to the poem
than that, which I will in due course get to. Before I do, I should
point out that I take all the words in the poem to be what it most
makes sense for them to be, regardless of their original spelling.
Ergo, "loose" for me is "lose."
I plan (at the moment) to just make notes on the poem for a few posts,
then try for a near-final draft of my pluraphrase (by which I mean my
understanding of everything the poem says and is).
--Bob G.
Willedever
but.net> wrote:
> > >1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
> > >2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
> > >3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
> > >4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
> > >5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
> > >6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
> > >7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
> > >8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
> > >9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
> > >10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
> > >11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
> > >12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
> > >13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
> > >14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
>
You mean you don't know enough. That's what such a statement always
means.
> ...
> .... Moreover, this
> person will not fade like summer but live eternally in this poem ...
No, not in the poem, Bob. The Sonnet, itself, is not the eternal
lines. The eternal lines, are lines that he knew were already in
publication, at the time he wrote the Sonnet.
> ...
> ... But there is much more to the poem
> than that, ...
Indeed there is. Out of the mouths of babes.
> ... which I will in due course get to. ...
No, you never will, Bob. You don't know enough.
> ,,, I should
> point out that I take all the words in the poem to be what it most
> makes sense for them to be, regardless of their original spelling.
> Ergo, "loose" for me is "lose."
You'll never understand it by changing the words to suit yourself.
>
> I plan (at the moment) to just make notes on the poem for a few posts,
> then try for a near-final draft of my pluraphrase (by which I mean my
> understanding of everything the poem says and is).
You're wasting your time. You do not know enough about Shakespeare to
interpret any of the Sonnets. You imagine yourself intellectually
superior to Paul, but in fact you are not. You are identically as
ignorant as he is, of Shakespeare, which will inevitably make your
attempt at interpretation as foolish as his.
And idiot child jargon, like making up words such as "pluraphrase" is
not going to help you. You will die never knowing what Sonnet 18
means.
=======
O Rose of May!
Sometimes the Son shines too hot.
And every fair from fair sometime declines, when it falls from the
weeping willow tree of life.
So long as men can breathe ... to recite lines on stage.
=======
You don't have a prayer of understanding that Sonnet, Bob. You're
just too ignorant of Shakespeare. And Shakespeare is something you
will never learn.
But have a nice time, wasting your time.
Willedever
say, the middle of 1605, with spring of 1605 most likely. May of 1605
would be not a bad guess.
Anyway, go ahead, have fun.
Paul Crowley
> As to when Sonnet 18 was written, it had to be between
> July 1602, and say, the middle of 1605, with spring of
> 1605 most likely. May of 1605 would be not a bad guess.
I show how each line, phrase and word are exactly
those of an immensely precocious genius-poet at
the court of Elizabeth in April 1566, as he sets out
to describe the events in Scotland as perceived by
the English court of that day.
Can you do better for 1605?
Of course you can't. There isn't the faintest hope.
No one has ever done it better for any events at
any time in human history. No one would even
think of trying.
So, failing that, can you point to any faults or
discrepancies in my reading?
Of course you can't. All you have is ignorance and
blind faith -- just like all the other Strats and quasi-
Strats.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Forgive my ignorance, Will, but I thought you were an Oxfordian. Do
you now believe the man from Stratford wrote the works attributed to
him? Go ahead and sneer at me for not realizing or remembering that
you're for Derby or somebody. There are a lot of anti-Stratfordians,
so it's hard to keep track of who is what.
As for my knowledge of Shakespeare the man, it's true that it's scant,
though I doubt it's less than yours. But knowledge of a poet is close
to entirely irrelevant so far as appreciating his poetry is concerned;
what counts is knowledge of poetry. What evidence is there that you
have any knowledge of poetry, other than you Crowleyan certainty that
you do? That is, what have you published on poetry or poetics besides
the pewelry you've blessed the Internet with?
--Bob G.
Willedever
but.net> wrote:
>
> ...
> As for my knowledge of Shakespeare the man, ...
How many of the Shakespeare plays have you studied carefully? I don't
mean just reading through a play once, yawning and leaning on your
hand, and I'm not asking whether you've sat through a Romeo and Juliet
movie.
We know that most of the Poet's writings were plays. We know that he
wrote the Sonnets during the same period of time he was writing
plays. So, if he referenced one of his plays in the course of writing
a sonnet, would you be able to recognize that?
> ... But knowledge of a poet is close
> to entirely irrelevant so far as appreciating his poetry ...
Poetic appreciation concerns whether you like a poem, or not, and
why. "Wow, this poem really has cool metaphor, and like, zing went
the strings of my heart." That's appreciation. It's all most people
can do when it come to the Sonnets, or any poetry, because they don't
know enough to do anything more.
Writing a paraphrase, that's worth anything, goes beyond
appreciation. You have to actually know something.
> ... is concerned;
> what counts is knowledge of poetry. ...
What counts, in interpreting the poems of a particular poet, so as to
do a worthwhile paraphrase, is /knowledge/ of that poet's word usage.
For Shakespeare, you find the vast bulk of his words in his plays.
One small quick example, using Sonnet 3. These lines:
05. For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb
06. Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?
Now look at the original print publications of 'Hamlet', the First
Folio, and the Second Quarto, and examine the exact wording in each
publication. Transcripts and facsimilies of those are available at
Internet Shakespeare Editions, and HamletWorks, and elsewhere. You
will find something interesting. The word "till" appears in both
publications, but there are cases where it's spelled differently. As
follows, the First Folio spelling shown first, and the Second Quarto
spelling shown second.
My good friends, Ile leaue you ( til / tell ) night,
( Till / Tell ) our scale turne the beame.
( Till / Tell ) then in patience our proceeding be.
We find a "tell" spelling of "till." Apply that /knowledge/ to Sonnet
3:
05. For where is she so fair whose unear'd womb
06. Disdains the /tellage/ of thy husbandry?
Ears are for hearing, of course, and to "tell" is to speak. It gives
the interpretation.....
05. For where is she so fair whose "unhearing" womb
06. Disdains the "speaking" of thy husbandry?
The meaning is clear enough: 'What woman is so beautiful that she
wouldn't hear your proposal, to get married and have children?'
Essentially that. "Womb" is synecdoche.
Thus the lines have a double meaning: a cultivation reference, and
also a hearing-speaking reference, via the ambiguity of "ear" and the
alternate spelling till/tell, which Elizabethan spelling practices
allowed.
And yes, I do consider that a "small, quick" example.
So, Bob, do you know enough Shakespeare to spot something like that?
Do you know how the Author actually wrote, in the context of his
times? (And again, most of his words are in his plays.) If not, your
"pluperduperphrase" or whatever you call it, will have more holes in
it than a swiss cheese used for shotgun practice. You'll be wasting
your time, like Paul does.
> What evidence is there that you
> have any knowledge of poetry, other than you Crowleyan certainty that
> you do? That is, what have you published on poetry or poetics besides
> the pewelry you've blessed the Internet with?
Nice job of defensive babbling, Bob. Crowleyan...pewelry... cute as a
baby.
But do you really /know/ any Shakespeare?
Willedever
>
> ... can you point to any faults or
> discrepancies in my reading?
Yes, Paul, I can. You've got Vere writing sonnets to the Queen when
he was 3 years old.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Nice job of defensive babbling, Bob. Crowleyan...pewelry... cute as a
> baby.
>
> But do you really /know/ any Shakespeare?
Forgive my ignorance, Will, but I thought you were an Oxfordian. Do
you now believe the man from Stratford wrote the works attributed to
him? Go ahead and sneer at me for not realizing or remembering that
you're for Derby or somebody. There are a lot of anti-Stratfordians,
so it's hard to keep track of who is what.
As for my knowledge of Shakespeare the man, it's true that it's
scant,
though I doubt it's less than yours. But knowledge of a poet is
close
to entirely irrelevant so far as appreciating his poetry is
concerned;
what counts is knowledge of poetry. What evidence is there that you
have any knowledge of poetry, other than you Crowleyan certainty that
you do? That is, what have you published on poetry or poetics
besides
the pewelry you've blessed the Internet with?
Oh, and know, I'm not the sort of rigidnikal bardolatory who gives a
damn about different spellings in the plays, although I may find
certain of them interesting when pointed out by one or another
pedant. Cross references in a poet's oeuvre can occasionally be
meaningful, but rarely of anything like central importance. What
counts are the words on the page. "Tellage" is not. The context
makes that absolutely clear.
--Bob G.
Willedever
paraphrase, of any Sonnet, or any speech in a play, or anything in
Shakespeare at all.
Or maybe you can prove that you're not too ignorant. Let's find out.
Look at the lines below from Sonnet 4.
1. State what the word "how" means.
2. State what the proper punctuation for the lines is, in modern
printing.
~~
Then how when nature calls thee to be gone,
What acceptable Audit can'st thou leaue?
~~
Can you do it?
If you can't even do that and get it right.....
Willedever
"great" under a long division sign is poetry. Or something like
that. Well, de gustibus non... sure.
Myself, for poetry, I like this kind of thing better:
http://www.hamletregained.com/be_keeping.html
If you want to know.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Will, if you want to get into a back&forth about how my knowledge of
poetry and poetics compares with yours, please start a new thread
about it. Feel freee to repeat this post and your next there. I'm
not responding to either here--because I want this thread to be
limited as much as possible to Sonnet 18.
--Bob G.
Willedever
but.net> wrote:
> ...
> Will, if you want to get into a back&forth about how my knowledge of
> poetry and poetics compares with yours, please start a new thread
You're the one who raised that subject, Bob and Weave.
And if you're going to do something in depth on S18 in this thread
you'd better get to it, 'cause Crowley marked his post x-archive.
Zoom, Bob, zoom. There's nothing like a deadline to motivate a person
and stimulate creativity.
Paul Crowley
> You're the one who raised that subject, Bob and Weave.
>
> And if you're going to do something in depth on S18 in this thread
> you'd better get to it, 'cause Crowley marked his post x-archive.
> Zoom, Bob, zoom. There's nothing like a deadline to motivate a
> person and stimulate creativity.
That only applies to Google archives, and
not to newsreaders -- such as aioe.org
(which, as it happens, both Bob and I use).
How can anyone just use Google, and not
be able to apply filters -- to get rid of that
massive amount of junk?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> On Nov 5, 4:15 am, "bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net" <bobgrum...@nut-n-
>
> but.net> wrote:
> > ...
> > Will, if you want to get into a back&forth about how my knowledge of
> > poetry and poetics compares with yours, please start a new thread
> > about it. ...
>
> You're the one who raised that subject, Bob and Weave.
It's irrelevant who first went beyond what I wanted the exclusive
subject of this thread to be, but in actual fact, it was you. Reread
your first post to this thread, Will. In it you tell me, "You mean
you don't know enough. That's what such a statement always means."
You say much the same thing again in the same post two or three
times. I then foolishly defended my "credentials" and challenged you
to reveal yours, which you won't do, it would seem.
> And if you're going to do something in depth on S18 in this thread
> you'd better get to it, 'cause Crowley marked his post x-archive.
> Zoom, Bob, zoom. There's nothing like a deadline to motivate a person
> and stimulate creativity.
I'm still thinking. Feel free to post YOUR interpretation in the
meantime, Will. I'm curious to see how it compares to Paul's.
This really will be my last post to this thread not about Sonnet 18.
--Bob G.
Willedever
> be able to apply filters -- to get rid of that
> massive amount of junk?
Get rid of you, Paul? Oh, I wouldn't have the heart. It would be
like shooting a bunny.
Willedever
but.net> wrote:
> ...
> your first post to this thread, Will. In it you tell me, "You mean
> you don't know enough. That's what such a statement always means."
> You say much the same thing again in the same post two or three
And still oh, so true. You don't know any Shakespeare.
> I'm still thinking. Feel free to post YOUR interpretation in the
> meantime, Will. ...
You don't get around much, do you?
>
> This really will be my last post to this thread not about Sonnet 18.
Promises, promises.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> > >1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
will be recited or given the title of "sonnet" on the page makes this
line, for me, read:
In writing this poem to you and about you, would a comparison of you
to a summer's day be apt?
Implict possible under-meaning: should I be like the many other poets
who flatter their subject by comparing siad subject to a nice day in
the summertime?
> > >2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
The comparison would be wrong because you are superior to a summer's
day in appearance and temperament.
> > >3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
This line I had trouble with for a long time because May is a spring
month, not a summer month. But the line is talking about buds, and
May buds, I suppose, can last into summer. In any case, they are
subjected to being shaken by unruly weather, which makes the summer
day they're in flawed compared to the addressee.
> > >4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
Here the poet gets confused, it seems to me. He's been writing about
a day in summer but now he seems to be concerned with the entire
season. Halfwits will tell you that logic doesn't matter in poems.
It does. Not that it matters enough here to spoil the poem. Anyway,
the line means, summer's occupation of the year is much too brief.
I'll come back to this line. There may be a way out of the apparent
contradiction.
> > >5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
A summer day is changeable, too--changeable for the worse as when it
gets too hot.
> > >6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
Clouds can spoil a summer day, too, turning it from bright colors to
gray..
> > >7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
At some point every beautiful thing in the summer day will become less
than beautiful--
> > >8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
put out of adjustment by chance, or simply nature's undependable
behavior.
> > >9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
Unlike a day in summer, the qualities of summer you possess will stay
at their peak forever
> > >10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
nor will you lose the beauty (of both appearance and temperament) you
own. "Loose" makes no sense, so must be "lose"; "ow'st" must be
Elizabethan for "ownest" since "owest" makes no sense.
> > >11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
nor will death be able to boast that you have become a member of his
dark community (i.e., you shall not die)
> > >12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
When in lines of poetry that will last forever you grow . . . to
time? I don't quite get this line yet--except that I'm sure it means
when you have become part of lines in an eternal poem, or when an
eternal poem has captured you in its lines. The addressee grows with
the poem's enlargement by being read. The lines are to time--here,
time, take these lines.
> > >13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
as long as there are people around to see,
> > >14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
this poem will exist (for them to read), and it will keep you alive.
A return to 4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
a thought: Summer's lease or attachment to the day is all too short--
that is, it may not stay in the day for 24 hours, its lease may be up
at 5 PM--when the temprature drops for some reason, or the like
happens.
This is my first full paraphrase of the poem. I certainly hope to
refine it. As time allows, I will go on to discuss much more
important aspects of the poem. A paraphrase reveals what I call a
poem's fore-burden. People not knowing much about poetry consider
this 90% of the poem. Actually, it is merely its foundation; no, it
is only its narrative foundation. It also has a formal foundation, in
this case, its 14 sonnet-lines.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>>>> 1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
>
> This line and the shape of the poem as a whole, and the fact that
> it will be recited or given the title of "sonnet" on the page
> makes this line, for me, read:
>
> In writing this poem to you and about you, would a comparison of
> you to a summer's day be apt?
<snip of much more of the same>
Do you want anyone to criticise this silliness?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I wouldn't mind criticism from anyone who knows the first thing about
poetry (who, among other requirements, would have to have read a
significant amount of poetry by someone besides Shakespeare), Paul,
but I'd prefer not to deal with it until I've made my full response to
the poem. As for your responses feel free to make them at any time,
since they be too moronic to deal with, so will only distract me for
the time it takes me to get over laughing at them.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
been mistaken by one or two of my few readers as a synonym for
"paraphrase." While it includes the paraphrase of the poem it serves,
it is also includes everything in the poem via the poem's unarguable
connotations, symbols and quotations, in particular its archetypal
meaning (if it has one). Everything else in the poem is fruit to its
trunk and branches.
Next, I'll be discussing the poem's tone, the primary "emotional"
result of its foreburden. I hope to do this fairly soon, but my brain
isn't very dependable, and my allergies have been screwing me up
lately.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>>>> 1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
>
> This line and the shape of the poem as a whole, and the fact
> that it will be recited or given the title of "sonnet" on the
> page makes this line, for me, read:
>
> In writing this poem to you and about you, would a comparison
> of you to a summer's day be apt?
Why ask anyone such a stupid question?
Either you're going to make the comparison
or you are not.
(The true reason for the 'question' was that
this exact comparison had been made too often
and wholly impertinently by too many low-class
people, who had not a clue what they were
talking about.)
> Implict possible under-meaning: should I be like the many
> other poets who flatter their subject by comparing siad
> subject to a nice day in the summertime?
Since no other poets had done anything of the
kind, this notion is ridiculous. (Here you
provide a good illustration of your knowledge
of poetry.)
>>>> 2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
>
> The comparison would be wrong because you are superior to a
> summer's day in appearance and temperament.
A truly absurd line of thinking. Is the
addressee better than a Autumn morning?
Or a winter's night? Or spring week-end?
Or a Wednesday in October?
>>>> 3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
>
> This line I had trouble with for a long time because May is a
> spring month, not a summer month.
But you forgot to consider why the poet might
have brought in May and its 'buds'.
> But the line is talking
> about buds, and May buds, I suppose, can last into summer.
Nope. Certainly not. Buds become flowers and
leaves as soon as it gets warm.
> In any case, they are subjected to being shaken by unruly
> weather, which makes the summer day they're in flawed compared
> to the addressee.
How to completely miss the point. You think
the whole poem is about gardening! That
must be why gardeners have long been such
great poets.
>>>> 4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
>
> Here the poet gets confused, it seems to me. He's been
> writing about a day in summer but now he seems to be concerned
> with the entire season. Halfwits will tell you that logic
> doesn't matter in poems. It does.
It does indeed. But it is not 'logic' about
meteorological and horticultural issues that
make for good poetry.
> Not that it matters enough
> here to spoil the poem. Anyway, the line means, summer's
> occupation of the year is much too brief.
This is the sort of crap you'd get from a
seven-year-old child -- although, to be fair,
it's also the kind of thing that Peter Groves
teaches.
Is it any wonder that universities destroy so
many minds?
>>>> 5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
>
> A summer day is changeable, too--changeable for the worse as
> when it gets too hot.
No -- I can't go on. The sheer banality would
drive me insane.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>>> 1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
>
> > This line and the shape of the poem as a whole, and the fact
> > that it will be recited or given the title of "sonnet" on the
> > page makes this line, for me, read:
>
> > In writing this poem to you and about you, would a comparison
> > of you to a summer's day be apt?
>
> Why ask anyone such a stupid question?
> Either you're going to make the comparison
> or you are not.
>
> (The true reason for the 'question' was that
> this exact comparison had been made too often
> and wholly impertinently by too many low-class
> people, who had not a clue what they were
> talking about.)
>
> > Implict possible under-meaning: should I be like the many
I'll attend to your response to my paraphrase later, when (as I've
said before) I've laid out my complete response to the poem. On word
for you here, though, Paul: what you're responding to is a paraphrase
of what's on the surface of the poem. It does not include what I call
under-meanings, or what might be called the poem's connotational and/
or symbolic layer, or layers. A paraphrase, as I use the term (along
with most critics, I believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of
the poem.
Now, then, I believe you have said that you accept some or maybe all
of this as the literal meaning of the poem. You go on to dismiss it
as trivial compared to the meaning you find under it. Or don't you?
Surely you can't believe that the poem's first line does not ask
whether or not the poet ought to compare the person her addresses to a
day in summer?
I would agree with you that the poem is much more than my paraphrase
of it. The literal meaning of the poem's surface, by itself, IS
uninteresting, and maybe even banal. I, of course, contend that the
literal meaning of almost any poem is that. It's what happens in the
poem on top of that, or under that, that counts.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> I'll attend to your response to my paraphrase later, when (as I've
> said before) I've laid out my complete response to the poem.
Ok. Don't take too long. And don't make
it quite as detailed as Willedever's.
http://groups.google.com/group/distracted-globe/browse_thread/thread/3c5ab39768249dd5?hl=en
And I'm sure that you could learn a lot from
Hank Whittemore's reading -- I bet you think
it knocks spots off mine:
http://www.shakespearesmonument.com/uploads/Sonnet%2018.pdf
Shall I compare you to a most royal prince?
You are more royal with more claim to the throne:
Difficulties beset royal children of the Tudor Rose,
And this golden time has all too short a date.
Sometimes the son of Elizabeth burns too bright
And often his true blood right can’t be seen,
And every royal son sometimes loses his luster,
By chance or by Elizabeth’s changing mind.
But your eternal royalty will not die,
Nor will you lose that royalty you owe England,
Nor will Elizabeth’s death conquer it,
When it grows in these eternal lines of my diary.
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
So long lives this verse, and it gives life to you.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > I'll attend to your response to my paraphrase later, when (as I've
> > said before) I've laid out my complete response to the poem.
>
> Ok. Don't take too long. And don't make
> it quite as detailed as Willedever's.
It will be more detailed than his, probably--but I won't know till I
start.
> http://groups.google.com/group/distracted-globe/browse_thread/thread/...
>
> And I'm sure that you could learn a lot from
> Hank Whittemore's reading -- I bet you think
> it knocks spots off mine:
I doubt I could learn much from it. To me, it's the same sort of
thing as yours, with a different decoder ring.
> http://www.shakespearesmonument.com/uploads/Sonnet%2018.pdf
>
> Shall I compare you to a most royal prince?
> You are more royal with more claim to the throne:
> Difficulties beset royal children of the Tudor Rose,
> And this golden time has all too short a date.
> Sometimes the son of Elizabeth burns too bright
> And often his true blood right can’t be seen,
> And every royal son sometimes loses his luster,
> By chance or by Elizabeth’s changing mind.
> But your eternal royalty will not die,
> Nor will you lose that royalty you owe England,
> Nor will Elizabeth’s death conquer it,
> When it grows in these eternal lines of my diary.
> So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
> So long lives this verse, and it gives life to you.
>
> Paul.
It seems silly, but I suppose he explains how he gets it, which I'll
read when I have time--not expecting to find it very rational. I
think the story he finds makes more sense than yours, and works better
in the poem--but his support for it may be less than your support for
yours.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I would be interested in your responses to what follows, Paul.
> I'll attend to your response to my paraphrase later, when (as I've
> said before) I've laid out my complete response to the poem. One word
> for you here, though, Paul: what you're responding to is a paraphrase
> of what's on the surface of the poem. It does not include what I call
> under-meanings, or what might be called the poem's connotational and/
> or symbolic layer, or layers. A paraphrase, as I use the term (along
> with most critics, I believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of
> the poem.
>
> Now, then, I believe you have said that you accept some or maybe all
> of this as the literal meaning of the poem. You go on to dismiss it
> as trivial compared to the meaning you find under it. Or don't you?
> Surely you can't believe that the poem's first line does not ask
> whether or not the poet ought to compare the person her addresses to a
> day in summer?
The above is what I'm most interested in getting your thoughts on. It
seems to me you agree that the poet intended the poem to be
paraphrased as I've paraphrased it.
Paul Crowley
>>> I'll attend to your response to my paraphrase later, when (as I've
>>> said before) I've laid out my complete response to the poem.
>>
>> Ok. Don't take too long. And don't make
>> it quite as detailed as Willedever's.
>
> It will be more detailed than his, probably
I was joking. His 'detail' is non-existent.
>> http://groups.google.com/group/distracted-globe/browse_thread/thread/...
>>
>> And I'm sure that you could learn a lot from
>> Hank Whittemore's reading -- I bet you think
>> it knocks spots off mine:
>
> I doubt I could learn much from it. To me, it's the same
> sort of thing as yours, with a different decoder ring.
If my ring worked that badly, I'd have
thrown it away within minutes.
>> http://www.shakespearesmonument.com/uploads/Sonnet%2018.pdf
>>
>> Shall I compare you to a most royal prince?
>> You are more royal with more claim to the throne:
>> Difficulties beset royal children of the Tudor Rose,
>> And this golden time has all too short a date.
>> Sometimes the son of Elizabeth burns too bright
>> And often his true blood right can’t be seen,
>> And every royal son sometimes loses his luster,
>> By chance or by Elizabeth’s changing mind.
>> But your eternal royalty will not die,
>> Nor will you lose that royalty you owe England,
>> Nor will Elizabeth’s death conquer it,
>> When it grows in these eternal lines of my diary.
>> So long as men can breathe or eyes can see,
>> So long lives this verse, and it gives life to you.
>
> It seems silly, but I suppose he explains how he gets it,
There is nothing that can be called 'an
explanation'. In "Shall I compare thee to
a Summer's day", a small set of simple
assertions are made: the "Summer's day" =
= the Sun = Royalty = 'a most royal prince'.
And that's the 'explanation'.
> which I'll read when I have time--not expecting to find it very
> rational.
It isn't rational -- not in the least part.
> I think the story he finds makes more sense than
> yours, and works better in the poem--
That's to be expected, since he seems to
largely share your notion of 'poetree', of
why and how it was (or should be) written.
He is another Oxfordian quasi-Strat (i.e.
take the entire (if crazy) scenario as set
out by the Strats, cross out the name of
the Stratman and replace it with Oxford's).
His approach to the Sonnets is just like
yours. The poet has no trace of a sense
of humour, and is permanently in agony.
He rites pomes -- no doubt with unsayable
undermeanings. Above all, Banality Rules.
The personal situation (of the poet and his
'addressee') comes in -- in some vague way,
but the pome is written for private purposes
-- to express grief or something, although,
as with Strats, the whys and wherefores are
never set out, nor even considered. It's
all 'poetree' and reasons are irrelevant.
> but his support for it may
> be less than your support for yours.
Like the Strats, he has no notion that
support is necessary, let alone desirable.
'Tis awl poetree -- reasons should not be
sought nor given.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
[..]
>>>> A summer day is changeable, too--changeable for the worse as
>>>> when it gets too hot.
>>>
>>> No -- I can't go on. The sheer banality would
>>> drive me insane.
> The above is what I'm most interested in getting your thoughts on.
> It seems to me you agree that the poet intended the poem to be
> paraphrased as I've paraphrased it.
He half-intended it, but he would have
been appalled by the results. It was
a joke, perhaps even a practical joke.
It's as though someone took the story
of the Swiss Spaghetti harvest seriously,
and spent twenty years looking for it,
wondering where they could have gone
wrong.
Paul.
Willedever
> ...
> Ok. Don't take too long. And don't make
> it quite as detailed as Willedever's.
>
Like I said, knock yourself out.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
How can you half-intend your poem to be paraphrased a certain way?
How can you paraphrase, or state the literal meaning of the surface of
this poem, any other way than I have paraphrased it? Remember, by the
way, that we're talking about Sonnet 18 only. Keeping that in mind,
how is it that just about EVERYONE paraphrases it about as I do? How
is it that many poets of Shakespeare's time wrote poems very much like
it that have been paraphrased very much as I've paraphrased Sonnet
18? How is it that poets since Shakespeare have written poems much
like it that people have paraphrased much as I've paraphrased Sonnet
18?
Also, it seems to me (and I'm not going to do some kind of search to
find out for sure) that you have said that Shakespeare fully intended
the "banal" interpretation of Sonnet 18. I forget just why you think
he did. Something to do with hiding its true meaning from the dolts.
And, just now, as a joke. All you're saying by caliming it was a joke
is that he fully intended my paraphrase, but hoped people would laugh--
not at the foolishness of an accurate paraphrase, but at the idea that
the poem didn't "really" mean something below the surface that was
much more important than the very traditional message the surface of
the poem delivered.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>> He half-intended it, but he would have
>> been appalled by the results. It was
>> a joke, perhaps even a practical joke.
>> It's as though someone took the story
>> of the Swiss Spaghetti harvest seriously,
>> and spent twenty years looking for it,
>> wondering where they could have gone
>> wrong.
>
> How can you half-intend your poem to be paraphrased a certain way?
You say something with an obvious superficial
sense, but you intend something quite different.
Have you never told a joke? Never played on
words?
> How can you paraphrase, or state the literal meaning of the
> surface of this poem, any other way than I have paraphrased it?
Without checking the detail, I'm sure that
your reading of the superficial sense follows
the superficial sense adequately.
> Remember, by the way, that we're talking about Sonnet 18 only.
> Keeping that in mind, how is it that just about EVERYONE
> paraphrases it about as I do?
Not everyone. Have you checked Willedever?
Hank Whittemore certainly reads in some very
different senses. But you are right in that nearly
everyone else reads it as mindlessly as you.
When you haven't a clue as to the identity of
author, or the addressee or the nature of the
context, what else is likely?
> How is it that many poets of Shakespeare's time wrote poems very
> much like it that have been paraphrased very much as I've
> paraphrased Sonnet 18?
I question that -- strongly. Quote a few
lines of one you think similar.
> How is it that poets since Shakespeare have written poems much
> like it that people have paraphrased much as I've paraphrased
> Sonnet 18?
Again, I'd strongly question that.
> Also, it seems to me (and I'm not going to do some kind of search
> to find out for sure) that you have said that Shakespeare fully
> intended the "banal" interpretation of Sonnet 18.
Sure -- as one intends a joke. A famous joke
of Ronnie Barker's (purely as an example) is
going into a hardware store and asking for
'Four Candles' -- but meaning 'Fork Handles'.
The point of the joke is that both senses are
intended.
> I forget just why you think he did. Something to do with hiding
> its true meaning from the dolts. And, just now, as a joke.
Jokes cease to be jokes when you have
to explain them particle by particle.
> All you're saying by caliming it was a joke is that he fully
> intended my paraphrase, but hoped people would laugh
Only some jokes are meant to provoke
laughter. I am not going to try to
explain this to an American Strat.
> --not at the foolishness of an accurate paraphrase, but at the
> idea that the poem didn't "really" mean something below the
> surface that was much more important than the very traditional
> message the surface of the poem delivered.
More or less. But this style was fundamental.
It enabled great poetry. Systematic ambiguity is
an ancient technique, but this poet's was aware
that his highly privileged position, right at the
centre of events, allowed him to embed a density
of meaning far beyond that available to other
poets. He knew intimately the most interesting
people of an extraordinarily interesting age.
He was familiar with state secrets; he had a
sound understanding of all the political,
religious, historical, cultural, scientific and
military issues of the day.
This was not planned. It just happened. He was
not able to write openly -- for a whole number
of reasons. Personal and meaningful sonnets
addressed to the Queen could never have been
published for what they were. Likewise, his
own identity had been concealed since his own
first writings.
You should not expect to find other poets who
write in the same way. The restrictions imposed
upon him, allied to his extraordinary opportunities,
made his situation quite unique -- and unlike
anything experienced by other poets.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> He half-intended it, but he would have
> >> been appalled by the results. It was
> >> a joke, perhaps even a practical joke.
> >> It's as though someone took the story
> >> of the Swiss Spaghetti harvest seriously,
> >> and spent twenty years looking for it,
> >> wondering where they could have gone
> >> wrong.
>
> > How can you half-intend your poem to be paraphrased a certain way?
>
> You say something with an obvious superficial
> sense, but you intend something quite different.
> Have you never told a joke? Never played on
> words?
>
> > How can you paraphrase, or state the literal meaning of the
> > surface of this poem, any other way than I have paraphrased it?
>
> Without checking the detail, I'm sure that
> your reading of the superficial sense follows
> the superficial sense adequately.
But the superficial sense is the literal sense, and that's all you can
paraphrase. You interpret the paraphrase and think you're
paraphrasing. You aren't. You're going beyond a paraphrase.
>
> > Remember, by the way, that we're talking about Sonnet 18 only.
> > Keeping that in mind, how is it that just about EVERYONE
> > paraphrases it about as I do?
>
> Not everyone. Have you checked Willedever?
> Hank Whittemore certainly reads in some very
> different senses. But you are right in that nearly
> everyone else reads it as mindlessly as you.
> When you haven't a clue as to the identity of
> author, or the addressee or the nature of the
> context, what else is likely?
I can't remember what he said on the one or two of his "readings" I've
read, but I'm just talking about paraphrasing. I doubt his paraphrase
is much different from mine--or, as you acknowledge, yours. The
paraphrase IS the superficial meaning of the poem.
> > How is it that many poets of Shakespeare's time wrote poems very
> > much like it that have been paraphrased very much as I've
> > paraphrased Sonnet 18?
>
> I question that -- strongly. Quote a few
> lines of one you think similar.
Paul, it's a love poem, on the surface. All love poems are similar to
it. And why should I bother to quote some lines to you? You will
simply say there's no similarity. But I will nonetheless give you
Byron's "She walks in beauty, like the night/ Of cloudless climes and
starry skies;/ And all that's best of dark and bright/ Meet in her
aspect and her eyes:/ Thus mellowed to that tender light/ Which heaven
to the gaudy day denies."
I'm not a big Byron fan but think this one of his major. It's 18
lines long, by the way, so even fairly close to Shakespeare's in
technique. So he uses night instead of a summer's day, big deal.
It's the same kind of thing, comparing a loved one to something common
in nature. Shakespeare says his addressee is superior to a summer's
day, Byron much the same thing--his addressee is like night, thus
superior to "the gaudy day."
> > How is it that poets since Shakespeare have written poems much
> > like it that people have paraphrased much as I've paraphrased
> > Sonnet 18?
>
> Again, I'd strongly question that.
>
> > Also, it seems to me (and I'm not going to do some kind of search
> > to find out for sure) that you have said that Shakespeare fully
> > intended the "banal" interpretation of Sonnet 18.
>
> Sure -- as one intends a joke. A famous joke
> of Ronnie Barker's (purely as an example) is
> going into a hardware store and asking for
> 'Four Candles' -- but meaning 'Fork Handles'.
> The point of the joke is that both senses are
> intended.
Yes, a pun. But Sonnet 18 does not sanely pun. Is the addressee more
lovely and more temperate than a "Somer's fuck?" No. Your pun does
not work, so isn't there.
> > I forget just why you think he did. Something to do with hiding
> > its true meaning from the dolts. And, just now, as a joke.
>
> Jokes cease to be jokes when you have
> to explain them particle by particle.
No, they cease to be funny. They remain jokes.
> > All you're saying by claiming it was a joke is that he fully
> > intended my paraphrase, but hoped people would laugh
>
> Only some jokes are meant to provoke
> laughter. I am not going to try to
> explain this to an American Strat.
Good grief. Laughter or something of that nature. SOme enjoyment of
the thing as comic.
> > --not at the foolishness of an accurate paraphrase, but at the
> > idea that the poem didn't "really" mean something below the
> > surface that was much more important than the very traditional
> > message the surface of the poem delivered.
>
> More or less. But this style was fundamental.
> It enabled great poetry. Systematic ambiguity is
> an ancient technique, but this poet's was aware
> that his highly privileged position, right at the
> centre of events, allowed him to embed a density
> of meaning far beyond that available to other
> poets. He knew intimately the most interesting
> people of an extraordinarily interesting age.
> He was familiar with state secrets; he had a
> sound understanding of all the political,
> religious, historical, cultural, scientific and
> military issues of the day.
Blah blah blah. But we're taling here ONLY of the paraphrase, not
what you extract from it.
> This was not planned. It just happened. He was
> not able to write openly -- for a whole number
> of reasons. Personal and meaningful sonnets
> addressed to the Queen could never have been
> published for what they were. Likewise, his
> own identity had been concealed since his own
> first writings.
>
> You should not expect to find other poets who
> write in the same way. The restrictions imposed
> upon him, allied to his extraordinary opportunities,
> made his situation quite unique -- and unlike
> anything experienced by other poets.
>
> Paul.
Would he never write a "normal" poem? For instance, be moved by the
beauty of a river or the ocean, as many poets have been, and write a
direct poem about it. Could he leave the queen out of a poem?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>> Without checking the detail, I'm sure that
>> your reading of the superficial sense follows
>> the superficial sense adequately.
>
> But the superficial sense is the literal sense, and that's
> all you can paraphrase.
I don't accept any of this. A paraphrase must
be of the author's meaning. If he intends two
or more senses, then you have to mention them.
When a passage is packed with uncertainties and
ambiguities, your problems may be so difficult
as to make a paraphrase impossible.
> You interpret the paraphrase and think you're paraphrasing. You
> aren't. You're going beyond a paraphrase.
I don't claim to paraphrase.
>> Not everyone. Have you checked Willedever?
>> Hank Whittemore certainly reads in some very
>> different senses. But you are right in that nearly
>> everyone else reads it as mindlessly as you.
>> When you haven't a clue as to the identity of
>> author, or the addressee or the nature of the
>> context, what else is likely?
>
> I can't remember what he said on the one or two of his
> "readings" I've read, but I'm just talking about
> paraphrasing. I doubt his paraphrase is much different
> from mine--
He provides a 'translation'. He would
probably see as little sense to doing a
standard paraphrase as I would.
> or, as you acknowledge, yours. The
> paraphrase IS the superficial meaning of the poem.
Not true. Paraphrase 'Four candles' as it
comes from the mouth of Ronnie Barker.
> Paul, it's a love poem, on the surface. All love poems are
> similar to it.
I would not accept any of that.
> And why should I bother to quote some lines to
> you? You will simply say there's no similarity. But I will
> nonetheless give you Byron's "She walks in beauty, like the
> night/ Of cloudless climes and starry skies;/ And all that's
> best of dark and bright/ Meet in her aspect and her eyes:/ Thus
> mellowed to that tender light/ Which heaven to the gaudy day
> denies."
>
> I'm not a big Byron fan but think this one of his major. It's
> 18 lines long, by the way, so even fairly close to Shakespeare's
> in technique. So he uses night instead of a summer's day, big
> deal. It's the same kind of thing, comparing a loved one to
> something common in nature. Shakespeare says his addressee is
> superior to a summer's day, Byron much the same thing--his
> addressee is like night, thus superior to "the gaudy day."
In my experience anything that good has
some 'back-story'. It is always much more
than it seems.
>> 'Four Candles' -- but meaning 'Fork Handles'.
>> The point of the joke is that both senses are
>> intended.
>
> Yes, a pun.
But my point is that you CANNOT paraphrase a
pun. You have to state both senses. To skip
one is to miss the entire purpose of the
passage.
> But Sonnet 18 does not sanely pun.
You're changing the subject.
> Is the addressee more lovely and more temperate than a "Somer's
> fuck?" No. Your pun does not work, so isn't there.
Of course it works. The comparisons of
Elizabeth to Mary QS at the time were so
common, and had become so tedious, that
they could only be talked about when
something remarkable happened -- that
turned them on their head.
>>> I forget just why you think he did. Something to do with hiding
>>> its true meaning from the dolts. And, just now, as a joke.
>>
>> Jokes cease to be jokes when you have
>> to explain them particle by particle.
>
> No, they cease to be funny. They remain jokes.
Sure -- unfunny jokes, ones that have lost the
vital quality all jokes must have. It is
impossible to paraphrase most jokes, without
destroying their sense. You don't seem to be
able to get this. The be-all and end-all is
the joke. No one cares (or should care) whether
or not a paraphrase can be made of it.
>>> --not at the foolishness of an accurate paraphrase, but at the
>>> idea that the poem didn't "really" mean something below the
>>> surface that was much more important than the very traditional
>>> message the surface of the poem delivered.
>>
>> More or less. But this style was fundamental.
>> It enabled great poetry. Systematic ambiguity is
>> an ancient technique, but this poet's was aware
>> that his highly privileged position, right at the
>> centre of events, allowed him to embed a density
>> of meaning far beyond that available to other
>> poets. He knew intimately the most interesting
>> people of an extraordinarily interesting age.
>> He was familiar with state secrets; he had a
>> sound understanding of all the political,
>> religious, historical, cultural, scientific and
>> military issues of the day.
>
> Blah blah blah. But we're taling here ONLY of the paraphrase,
> not what you extract from it.
YOU may only be talking of 'the paraphrase' as
though that was all that mattered in the world.
I am talking about how the poet worked and what
he meant.
>> This was not planned. It just happened. He was
>> not able to write openly -- for a whole number
>> of reasons. Personal and meaningful sonnets
>> addressed to the Queen could never have been
>> published for what they were. Likewise, his
>> own identity had been concealed since his own
>> first writings.
>>
>> You should not expect to find other poets who
>> write in the same way. The restrictions imposed
>> upon him, allied to his extraordinary opportunities,
>> made his situation quite unique -- and unlike
>> anything experienced by other poets.
>
> Would he never write a "normal" poem? For instance, be moved
> by the beauty of a river or the ocean, as many poets have been,
> and write a direct poem about it.
I doubt it. He was much too complicated and self-
aware. It would like asking a modern painter to
do a straightforward representational painting --
i.e. something close to a photograph.
> Could he leave the queen out of a poem?
Maybe. But he was a courtier-poet and he could
not have existed without her -- in numerous ways.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> Without checking the detail, I'm sure that
> >> your reading of the superficial sense follows
> >> the superficial sense adequately.
>
> > But the superficial sense is the literal sense, and that's
> > all you can paraphrase.
>
> I don't accept any of this. A paraphrase must
> be of the author's meaning.
The author's meaning is irrelevant. It's the poem's meaning that we
want to elucidate.
> If he intends two
> or more senses, then you have to mention them.
Eventually, of course. But in a paraphrase, as I understand it, you
only mention what is directly expressed. Question: do you think once
you have a paraphrase of a poem, you've "got" it? For me, the
paraphrase is just the start of an attempt to understand a poem.
> When a passage is packed with uncertainties and
> ambiguities, your problems may be so difficult
> as to make a paraphrase impossible.
I disagree, but haven't thought out a good response to this.
Okay, your definition of "paraphrase" differs from mine. That's why I
defined what a paraphrase is to me when I began. What you call a
paraphrase, I would call an interpretation. It doesn't matter. We
both want to reveal as fully as we can what the poem means. I contend
that I want to reveal what it is and does, too, which I don't think
you care about, but that's another topic.
> > You interpret the paraphrase and think you're paraphrasing. You
> > aren't. You're going beyond a paraphrase.
>
> I don't claim to paraphrase.
Not at all?
> >> Not everyone. Have you checked Willedever?
> >> Hank Whittemore certainly reads in some very
> >> different senses. But you are right in that nearly
> >> everyone else reads it as mindlessly as you.
> >> When you haven't a clue as to the identity of
> >> author, or the addressee or the nature of the
> >> context, what else is likely?
>
> > I can't remember what he said on the one or two of his
> > "readings" I've read, but I'm just talking about
> > paraphrasing. I doubt his paraphrase is much different
> > from mine--
>
> He provides a 'translation'. He would
> probably see as little sense to doing a
> standard paraphrase as I would.
You can't interpret a poem without providing some sort of paraphrase.
> > or, as you acknowledge, yours. The
> > paraphrase IS the superficial meaning of the poem.
>
> Not true. Paraphrase 'Four candles' as it
> comes from the mouth of Ronnie Barker.
The things on those standard dining utensils used to spear and hold
food for eating by means of which you can hold said utensils.
Simultaneously wax illumination devices numbering less than five but
more than three. If the context and pronunciation indicates both
meanings to be plausible.
> > Paul, it's a love poem, on the surface. All love poems are
> > similar to it.
>
> I would not accept any of that.
>
> > And why should I bother to quote some lines to
> > you? You will simply say there's no similarity. But I will
> > nonetheless give you Byron's "She walks in beauty, like the
> > night/ Of cloudless climes and starry skies;/ And all that's
> > best of dark and bright/ Meet in her aspect and her eyes:/ Thus
> > mellowed to that tender light/ Which heaven to the gaudy day
> > denies."
>
> > I'm not a big Byron fan but think this one of his major. It's
> > 18 lines long, by the way, so even fairly close to Shakespeare's
> > in technique. So he uses night instead of a summer's day, big
> > deal. It's the same kind of thing, comparing a loved one to
> > something common in nature. Shakespeare says his addressee is
> > superior to a summer's day, Byron much the same thing--his
> > addressee is like night, thus superior to "the gaudy day."
>
> In my experience anything that good has
> some 'back-story'. It is always much more
> than it seems.
Hmm, you seem to think the poem "that good," without knowing it's back-
story. How is that possible? If it has a back-story, I've never
heard it.
> >> 'Four Candles' -- but meaning 'Fork Handles'.
> >> The point of the joke is that both senses are
> >> intended.
>
> > Yes, a pun.
>
> But my point is that you CANNOT paraphrase a
> pun. You have to state both senses. To skip
> one is to miss the entire purpose of the
> passage.
If they are both there, a paraphrase would include both meanings.
> > But Sonnet 18 does not sanely pun.
>
> You're changing the subject.
I'm going from the immediate subject to the subject of this thread--to
make a point about the immediate subject.
> > Is the addressee more lovely and more temperate than a "Somer's
> > fuck?" No. Your pun does not work, so isn't there.
>
> Of course it works.
A fuck can be lovely and temperate?
> The comparisons of
> Elizabeth to Mary QS at the time were so
> common, and had become so tedious, that
> they could only be talked about when
> something remarkable happened -- that
> turned them on their head.
>
> >>> I forget just why you think he did. Something to do with hiding
> >>> its true meaning from the dolts. And, just now, as a joke.
>
> >> Jokes cease to be jokes when you have
> >> to explain them particle by particle.
>
> > No, they cease to be funny. They remain jokes.
>
> Sure -- unfunny jokes, ones that have lost the
> vital quality all jokes must have. It is
> impossible to paraphrase most jokes, without
> destroying their sense. You don't seem to be
> able to get this. The be-all and end-all is
> the joke. No one cares (or should care) whether
> or not a paraphrase can be made of it.
A critic or philosopher or psychologist should of course care. Also a
joke-maker.
> >>> --not at the foolishness of an accurate paraphrase, but at the
> >>> idea that the poem didn't "really" mean something below the
> >>> surface that was much more important than the very traditional
> >>> message the surface of the poem delivered.
>
> >> More or less. But this style was fundamental.
> >> It enabled great poetry. Systematic ambiguity is
> >> an ancient technique, but this poet's was aware
> >> that his highly privileged position, right at the
> >> centre of events, allowed him to embed a density
> >> of meaning far beyond that available to other
> >> poets. He knew intimately the most interesting
> >> people of an extraordinarily interesting age.
> >> He was familiar with state secrets; he had a
> >> sound understanding of all the political,
> >> religious, historical, cultural, scientific and
> >> military issues of the day.
>
> > Blah blah blah. But we're talking here ONLY of the paraphrase,
> > not what you extract from it.
>
> YOU may only be talking of 'the paraphrase' as
> though that was all that mattered in the world.
> I am talking about how the poet worked and what
> he meant.
>
Right, "as thought that was all that mattered in the world" even
though I've already said at least three times that the paraphrase is
minor, but the place where we have to start. It's the base of the
poem.
> >> This was not planned. It just happened. He was
> >> not able to write openly -- for a whole number
> >> of reasons. Personal and meaningful sonnets
> >> addressed to the Queen could never have been
> >> published for what they were. Likewise, his
> >> own identity had been concealed since his own
> >> first writings.
>
> >> You should not expect to find other poets who
> >> write in the same way. The restrictions imposed
> >> upon him, allied to his extraordinary opportunities,
> >> made his situation quite unique -- and unlike
> >> anything experienced by other poets.
>
> > Would he never write a "normal" poem? For instance, be moved
> > by the beauty of a river or the ocean, as many poets have been,
> > and write a direct poem about it.
>
> I doubt it. He was much too complicated and self-
> aware. It would like asking a modern painter to
> do a straightforward representational painting --
> i.e. something close to a photograph.
Lots of painters do stragihtforward representational paintings. Lots
of non-representational painters make paintings they consider to be
about the ocean or rivers.
> > Could he leave the queen out of a poem?
>
> Maybe. But he was a courtier-poet and he could
> not have existed without her -- in numerous ways.
Could not have existed without her--just because you can't?
Preposterous.
Paul Crowley
>>>> Without checking the detail, I'm sure that
>>>> your reading of the superficial sense follows
>>>> the superficial sense adequately.
>>>
>>> But the superficial sense is the literal sense, and that's
>>> all you can paraphrase.
>>
>> I don't accept any of this. A paraphrase must
>> be of the author's meaning.
>
> The author's meaning is irrelevant. It's the poem's meaning
> that we want to elucidate.
A silly distinction (if one at all).
>> If he intends two
>> or more senses, then you have to mention them.
>
> Eventually, of course. But in a paraphrase, as I understand it,
> you only mention what is directly expressed. Question: do you
> think once you have a paraphrase of a poem, you've "got" it?
> For me, the paraphrase is just the start of an attempt to
> understand a poem.
A dictionary definition of 'paraphrase' is
"a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning
in another form, as for clearness; rewording."
(Websters)
I'm not sure how it can be a start. It
certainly won't be if you fail to grasp
crucial aspects in the text (including
puns). For many texts, it could only be
the final product
>> When a passage is packed with uncertainties and
>> ambiguities, your problems may be so difficult
>> as to make a paraphrase impossible.
>
> I disagree, but haven't thought out a good response to this.
A paraphrase is (necessarily or almost
necessarily) a account of a single train
of thought. That's how everyone understands
it. When a text is hugely complicated then
a 'clear restatement' is not likely to be
possible.
>>> A paraphrase, as I use the term (along with most critics, I
>>> believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of the poem.
> Okay, your definition of "paraphrase" differs from mine. That's
> why I defined what a paraphrase is to me when I began.
You defined it as:
>>> A paraphrase, as I use the term (along with most critics, I
>>> believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of the poem.
I fully agree with this definition. Which
is why I say Shakespeare Sonnets cannot be
paraphrased -- any more than Ronnie Barker's
"Four Candles". Even IF the superficial
sense (or the "literal meaning") is clear,
there is little or no point in trying to set
it out
> What you
> call a paraphrase, I would call an interpretation.
I don't have another definition.
>>> You interpret the paraphrase and think you're paraphrasing. You
>>> aren't. You're going beyond a paraphrase.
>>
>> I don't claim to paraphrase.
>
> Not at all?
Not in any real sense. I pay little attention
to the "literal meaning" -- it is usually
banal. The sun does indeed cross the sky,
rising high and then falling low -- yawn,
yawn, yawn. Who wants to hear that?
>> He provides a 'translation'. He would
>> probably see as little sense to doing a
>> standard paraphrase as I would.
>
> You can't interpret a poem without providing some sort of paraphrase.
Hank does not bother about the literal
sense either (as far as I have seen).
He immediately translates it into
something else.
[..]
>> But my point is that you CANNOT paraphrase a
>> pun. You have to state both senses. To skip
>> one is to miss the entire purpose of the
>> passage.
>
> If they are both there, a paraphrase would include both meanings.
That is not the usual sense of 'paraphrase'.
But, if you are prepared to allow it to be
redefined in that direction, then all manner
of complicated senses can come in -- and
maybe we could say that my interpretations
are 'paraphrases'. But it is not a direction
that I'd like to go, as the original definition
was clear.
>>> Is the addressee more lovely and more temperate than a "Somer's
>>> fuck?" No. Your pun does not work, so isn't there.
>>
>> Of course it works.
>
> A fuck can be lovely and temperate?
Mary QS was commonly described as
(a) Darnley's (Somer's) fuck, and
(b) lovely and temperate.
Our poet states that Elizabeth is "more
lovely and more temperate" than her.
Everything fits.
<snip>
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>>> Without checking the detail, I'm sure that
> >>>> your reading of the superficial sense follows
> >>>> the superficial sense adequately.
>
> >>> But the superficial sense is the literal sense, and that's
> >>> all you can paraphrase.
>
> >> I don't accept any of this. A paraphrase must
> >> be of the author's meaning.
>
> > The author's meaning is irrelevant. It's the poem's meaning
> > that we want to elucidate.
>
> A silly distinction (if one at all).
It makes the point that what counts is what on the page not what
someone thinks is on the page, including the person who put it on the
page. If I write, "Paul Crowley is a scholar," the meaning of the
sentence is that Paul Crowley is a scholar" even if I left out "not."
It becomes more important with poems. Often a poet unconsciously gets
something into a poem he's unaware of. It's not his meaning, but it's
there. This almost always happens with the best poems. I've had
people find things in my poems that I wasn't aware of but agreed they
were there, and--as a critic--I've been complimented by poets for
having found more in their poems than they realized were in them.
I've also found a poem not to mean what its author wanted it to mean
and was sure it did mean. Can't think of examples, but you must be
aware that some people want to express a feeling but fail to, etc.
>
> >> If he intends two
> >> or more senses, then you have to mention them.
>
> > Eventually, of course. But in a paraphrase, as I understand it,
> > you only mention what is directly expressed. Question: do you
> > think once you have a paraphrase of a poem, you've "got" it?
> > For me, the paraphrase is just the start of an attempt to
> > understand a poem.
>
> A dictionary definition of 'paraphrase' is
> "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning
> in another form, as for clearness; rewording."
> (Websters)
I'm pretty sure a better dictionary, or a specialized dictionary,
would define it as "giving the denotative meaning" of a text. If it
gave the full meaning, there would be no reason for a critic to do
more than a paraphrase of a poem.
> I'm not sure how it can be a start. It
> certainly won't be if you fail to grasp
> crucial aspects in the text (including
> puns). For many texts, it could only be
> the final product
For no imaginable text could it be the final product because it has
nothing to do, for instance, with the sound of the words. But I would
agree that the porer the poem, the less there is to do analyzing it
beyond the paraphrase. It would be a start, even if puns were missed,
simply because it tells one what is there on the surface of the poem.
You go from there. It tells us that Sonnet 18 is about a "summer's
day," for instance. You then interpret that your way, but you use
that as a start.
> >> When a passage is packed with uncertainties and
> >> ambiguities, your problems may be so difficult
> >> as to make a paraphrase impossible.
>
> > I disagree, but haven't thought out a good response to this.
>
> A paraphrase is (necessarily or almost
> necessarily) a account of a single train
> of thought. That's how everyone understands
> it. When a text is hugely complicated then
> a 'clear restatement' is not likely to be
> possible.
Well, I would say that the paraphrase would put the complicated
strands into a single one.
> >>> A paraphrase, as I use the term (along with most critics, I
> >>> believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of the poem.
> > Okay, your definition of "paraphrase" differs from mine. That's
> > why I defined what a paraphrase is to me when I began.
>
> You defined it as:
>
> >>> A paraphrase, as I use the term (along with most critics, I
> >>> believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of the poem.
>
> I fully agree with this definition. Which
> is why I say Shakespeare Sonnets cannot be
> paraphrased -- any more than Ronnie Barker's
> "Four Candles".
Sonnet 18 has no literal meaning?
> Even IF the superficial
> sense (or the "literal meaning") is clear,
> there is little or no point in trying to set
> it out
You start any analysis of anything with the given. In the case of a
poem, it is the literal meaning. Even if clear--but you can never
assume it is clear to everyone. I once did a brilliant analysis of a
poem by a teacher of mine called "Window Seat." I thought it was
about an old fashioned seat built into the wall of a house next to a
window, maybe because I'd seen a picture of one a day or two prior to
reading the poem. But the "window seat" was an airplane window
seat.
> > What you
> > call a paraphrase, I would call an interpretation.
>
> I don't have another definition.
>
> >>> You interpret the paraphrase and think you're paraphrasing. You
> >>> aren't. You're going beyond a paraphrase.
>
> >> I don't claim to paraphrase.
>
> > Not at all?
>
> Not in any real sense. I pay little attention
> to the "literal meaning" -- it is usually
> banal. The sun does indeed cross the sky,
> rising high and then falling low -- yawn,
> yawn, yawn. Who wants to hear that?
Because it is the basis of the poem it's in--the metaphorical basis.
A paraphrase, I would add, should be banal. It is a simplification of
the poem.
> >> He provides a 'translation'. He would
> >> probably see as little sense to doing a
> >> standard paraphrase as I would.
>
> > You can't interpret a poem without providing some sort of paraphrase.
>
> Hank does not bother about the literal
> sense either (as far as I have seen).
> He immediately translates it into
> something else.
He doesn't want it to interfere with his wishlexic interpretation.
But I do acknowledge that merely printing out the poem is enough for a
reasonable appreciation. A paraphrase is only necessary if the
literal sense of a poem is obscure. Or if one wants to carry out a
maximal pluraphrase of the poem, as I call it.
> >> But my point is that you CANNOT paraphrase a
> >> pun. You have to state both senses. To skip
> >> one is to miss the entire purpose of the
> >> passage.
> > If they are both there, a paraphrase would include both meanings.
>
> That is not the usual sense of 'paraphrase'.
> But, if you are prepared to allow it to be
> redefined in that direction, then all manner
> of complicated senses can come in -- and
> maybe we could say that my interpretations
> are 'paraphrases'. But it is not a direction
> that I'd like to go, as the original definition
> was clear.
By both being there I mean, as I said (twice, I think) they have to be
there very clearly. "Do not go gentle into that good night," is an
example: "good night" can mean "farewell" and benevolent darkness. A
paraphrase has to indicate both, it seems to me.
>
> >>> Is the addressee more lovely and more temperate than a "Somer's
> >>> fuck?" No. Your pun does not work, so isn't there.
>
> >> Of course it works.
>
> > A fuck can be lovely and temperate?
>
> Mary QS was commonly described as
> (a) Darnley's (Somer's) fuck, and
I never thought of this. I would like to see one or two such
descriptions of Mary being called, "Darnley's fuck."
> (b) lovely and temperate.
>
> Our poet states that Elizabeth is "more
> lovely and more temperate" than her.
> Everything fits.
>
> <snip>
>
> Paul.
Well, I didn't want to get into your interpretation until I'd finished
my full response to the poem, so I'll not go further into this.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
> The collaboration between Shakespeare and Fletcher strongly
> suggests a date of 1613,
Why do you assume this as a fact?
> that is rather too late for some of the
> usual suspects in the authorshiip attribution horse race.
>
> Very embarrassing, having to avoid this play because it's another
> impossible set of facts to factor in.
The problem is with the supposed 'facts'.
You might say that both names are on the
quarto published in 1634, but the presence
of names (especially that of Shake-speare's)
on quartos around that time is not a reliable
guide to authorship.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>> The author's meaning is irrelevant. It's the poem's meaning
>>> that we want to elucidate.
>>
>> A silly distinction (if one at all).
>
> It makes the point that what counts is what on the page not what
> someone thinks is on the page, including the person who put it
> on the page.
I'd accept that for many texts, especially
something long and quasi-autobiographical.
But I had the Sonnets in mind, where I doubt
if there was one misplaced nor not-thought-out
word. I suppose my real point about them is
that our understanding is much too far behind
that of the poet's, for this to be any kind of
consideration.
>> A dictionary definition of 'paraphrase' is
>> "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning
>> in another form, as for clearness; rewording."
>> (Websters)
>
> I'm pretty sure a better dictionary, or a specialized dictionary,
> would define it as "giving the denotative meaning" of a text.
The word is commonplace. Journalists and
schoolchildren routinely paraphrase texts
that they are given. You seem to be
looking for something very different.
> It would be a start, even if puns were missed, simply because
> it tells one what is there on the surface of the poem. You go
> from there. It tells us that Sonnet 18 is about a "summer's
> day," for instance. You then interpret that your way, but you
> use that as a start.
The poet was playing a game -- pretending
to write banalities, while actually discussing
complex politics, etc. The banalities rarely
work -- in any sense beyond basic grammar.
There is little purpose to outlining his
superficial sense.
>> A paraphrase is (necessarily or almost
>> necessarily) a account of a single train
>> of thought. That's how everyone understands
>> it. When a text is hugely complicated then
>> a 'clear restatement' is not likely to be
>> possible.
>
> Well, I would say that the paraphrase would put the complicated
> strands into a single one.
When the poet is writing about (say) three
separate topics, the strands cannot be joined
into one.
>>>>> A paraphrase, as I use the term (along with most critics, I
>>>>> believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of the poem.
>>
>> I fully agree with this definition. Which
>> is why I say Shakespeare Sonnets cannot be
>> paraphrased -- any more than Ronnie Barker's
>> "Four Candles".
>
> Sonnet 18 has no literal meaning?
No -- or not really. The poet MAY or may
not have joined up the bits of the 'superficial
theme', but the extent to which he succeeds
or fails in any particular case is largely
academic.
>> Even IF the superficial
>> sense (or the "literal meaning") is clear,
>> there is little or no point in trying to set
>> it out
>
> You start any analysis of anything with the given. In the
> case of a poem, it is the literal meaning.
In the case of a Shakespeare Sonnet, you dismiss
the 'literal meaning' almost immediately. It is
usually absurd or nonsensical.
[..]
>> Mary QS was commonly described as
>> (a) Darnley's (Somer's) fuck, and
>
> I never thought of this. I would like to see one or two such
> descriptions of Mary being called, "Darnley's fuck."
You're not going to see anything in print.
I'm saying that it was certain that this
description was applied to her. She and her
husband were very unpopular with English
Protestants (among many others). She was
young and beautiful, and a virgin up to her
marriage to Darnley.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> The author's meaning is irrelevant. It's the poem's meaning
> >>> that we want to elucidate.
>
> >> A silly distinction (if one at all).
>
> > It makes the point that what counts is what on the page not what
> > someone thinks is on the page, including the person who put it
> > on the page.
>
> I'd accept that for many texts, especially
> something long and quasi-autobiographical.
> But I had the Sonnets in mind, where I doubt
> if there was one misplaced nor not-thought-out
> word. I suppose my real point about them is
> that our understanding is much too far behind
> that of the poet's, for this to be any kind of
> consideration.
Your real point is that your hero is a demigod, Paul
> >> A dictionary definition of 'paraphrase' is
> >> "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning
> >> in another form, as for clearness; rewording."
> >> (Websters)
>
> > I'm pretty sure a better dictionary, or a specialized dictionary,
> > would define it as "giving the denotative meaning" of a text.
>
> The word is commonplace. Journalists and
> schoolchildren routinely paraphrase texts
> that they are given. You seem to be
> looking for something very different.
They do denotative paraphrases. But what journalist and children do
is irrelevant, as is the fact that the word is commonplace. So is
"capitalism." So is "poem."
> > It would be a start, even if puns were missed, simply because
> > it tells one what is there on the surface of the poem. You go
> > from there. It tells us that Sonnet 18 is about a "summer's
> > day," for instance. You then interpret that your way, but you
> > use that as a start.
>
> The poet was playing a game -- pretending
> to write banalities, while actually discussing
> complex politics, etc. The banalities rarely
> work -- in any sense beyond basic grammar.
> There is little purpose to outlining his
> superficial sense.
No, he wrote what you think are banalities. If he was pretending, it
was that he took them seriously--as have all other poets who have put
such "banalities" in their poems, as you would know if you had given
serious study to the poetry of anyone but Shakespeare.
> >> A paraphrase is (necessarily or almost
> >> necessarily) a account of a single train
> >> of thought. That's how everyone understands
> >> it. When a text is hugely complicated then
> >> a 'clear restatement' is not likely to be
> >> possible.
>
> > Well, I would say that the paraphrase would put the complicated
> > strands into a single one.
>
> When the poet is writing about (say) three
> separate topics, the strands cannot be joined
> into one.
Of course they can if they relate at all, as they should. But what if
they can't, what if one has to say that the poem tells three stories.
a, b and c, then say what each story was, in turn?
> >>>>> A paraphrase, as I use the term (along with most critics, I
> >>>>> believe) is a summary of the literal meaning of the poem.
>
> >> I fully agree with this definition. Which
> >> is why I say Shakespeare Sonnets cannot be
> >> paraphrased -- any more than Ronnie Barker's
> >> "Four Candles".
>
> > Sonnet 18 has no literal meaning?
>
> No -- or not really. The poet MAY or may
> not have joined up the bits of the 'superficial
> theme', but the extent to which he succeeds
> or fails in any particular case is largely
> academic.
You lose me here. I say that the poem's first line literally ask if
the poet should compare the subject of the poem to a summer's day.
That's its literal meaning. I don't see how even you can deny that.
> >> Even IF the superficial
> >> sense (or the "literal meaning") is clear,
> >> there is little or no point in trying to set
> >> it out
>
> > You start any analysis of anything with the given. In the
> > case of a poem, it is the literal meaning.
>
> In the case of a Shakespeare Sonnet, you dismiss
> the 'literal meaning' almost immediately. It is
> usually absurd or nonsensical.
No one but you does. Nor does (just about) anyone dismiss the similar
literal meanings of thousands of other famous poems. Finally, to
dismiss a literal meaning as absurd or nonsensical is not to say it is
not there, it is to say it is there in a peculiar form.
> [..]
>
> >> Mary QS was commonly described as
> >> (a) Darnley's (Somer's) fuck, and
>
> > I never thought of this. I would like to see one or two such
> > descriptions of Mary being called, "Darnley's fuck."
>
> You're not going to see anything in print.
> I'm saying that it was certain that this
> description was applied to her.
In those words? Can you cite any woman being explicitly called some
man's "fuck?" I can accept it as a slang term though it's not one
I've come across that I remember. Also--but now I'm discussing your
interpretation. Enough, till later. (I still haven't gotten around
to continuing my discussion of the poem. Lots of other things going
on with me. It's easy enough to answer posts like yours but not so
easy to work up an analysis of a poem.)
She and her
> husband were very unpopular with English
> Protestants (among many others). She was
> young and beautiful, and a virgin up to her
> marriage to Darnley.
>
> Paul.
I probably won't answer your reply to this, if there is one. Not
because I have no answers but because we're into one of our vacuous
whirls, this time about what a paraphrase is, etc.
--Bob
Peter Groves
news:gfs7nt$r8e$1...@aioe.org...
Good Lord no -- Crowley's imagination is a *much* more reliable guide.
--
Peter G.
"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason ...
is like administering medicine to the dead.." (Thomas Paine)
>
> Paul.
>
>
>
Paul Crowley
>> The word is commonplace. Journalists and
>> schoolchildren routinely paraphrase texts
>> that they are given. You seem to be
>> looking for something very different.
>
> They do denotative paraphrases. But what journalist and
> children do is irrelevant, as is the fact that the word is
> commonplace. So is "capitalism." So is "poem."
It's not irrelevant. Further, unlike
'capitalism' or 'poem' it has a simple
common well-understood meaning, not
involving any kind of controversy.
[..]
>> When the poet is writing about (say) three
>> separate topics, the strands cannot be joined
>> into one.
>
> Of course they can if they relate at all, as they should. But
> what if they can't, what if one has to say that the poem tells
> three stories. a, b and c, then say what each story was, in
> turn?
That is what I do. But such texts are so unusual,
and the operation so different (from the usual
paraphrase) that another word is better, such as
'interpretation'.
>>> Sonnet 18 has no literal meaning?
>>
>> No -- or not really. The poet MAY or may
>> not have joined up the bits of the 'superficial
>> theme', but the extent to which he succeeds
>> or fails in any particular case is largely
>> academic.
>
> You lose me here. I say that the poem's first line literally ask
> if the poet should compare the subject of the poem to a summer's
> day. That's its literal meaning. I don't see how even you can
> deny that.
Firstly, and as I have told you before, the
comparison is nuts. You merely think it
acceptable because you have heard this line
so often. Secondly, the rest of the text
rapidly goes downhill, in terms of ordinary
sense. You remark on this yourself -- e.g.
that 'May' is not a summer month.
>> [..]
>>
>>>> Mary QS was commonly described as
>>>> (a) Darnley's (Somer's) fuck, and
>>>
>>> I never thought of this. I would like to see one or two such
>>> descriptions of Mary being called, "Darnley's fuck."
>>
>> You're not going to see anything in print.
>> I'm saying that it was certain that this
>> description was applied to her.
>
> In those words? Can you cite any woman being explicitly called
> some man's "fuck?" I can accept it as a slang term though it's
> not one I've come across that I remember.
Webster's:
10. a partner in sexual intercourse.
OED
1b. concr. A person (usu. a woman) considered in sexual terms.
1874 Lett. fr. Friend in Paris II. 168, I had always held
that dear mamma was the best fuck in the family, and in every way
a most desirable and splendid creature.
1969 S. Greenlee Spook who sat by Door ix. 77 An aborted
marriage to a favourite fuck.
1969 ‘J. Morris’ Fever Grass ii. 26 She was a good fuck.+ She
was great in bed.
> I probably won't answer your reply to this, if there is one. Not
> because I have no answers but because we're into one of our
> vacuous whirls, this time about what a paraphrase is, etc.
Fine.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> The word is commonplace. Journalists and
> >> schoolchildren routinely paraphrase texts
> >> that they are given. You seem to be
> >> looking for something very different.
>
> > They do denotative paraphrases. But what journalist and
> > children do is irrelevant, as is the fact that the word is
> > commonplace. So is "capitalism." So is "poem."
>
> It's not irrelevant. Further, unlike
> 'capitalism' or 'poem' it has a simple
> common well-understood meaning, not
> involving any kind of controversy.
Uncontroversial, but we're arguing about its meaning. It has no
simple meaning, Paul. If it does, state it. As for "poem" and
"captialism," their meanings to lots are uncontroversial. To those
who deal with them at a specialist's level, they are, like "parphrase"
when dealt with at a specialist's level, controversial.
>
> >> When the poet is writing about (say) three
> >> separate topics, the strands cannot be joined
> >> into one.
>
> > Of course they can if they relate at all, as they should. But
> > what if they can't, what if one has to say that the poem tells
> > three stories. a, b and c, then say what each story was, in
> > turn?
>
> That is what I do. But such texts are so unusual,
> and the operation so different (from the usual
> paraphrase) that another word is better, such as
> 'interpretation'.
We're into trivial semantics here. You do an interpretation, which
includes a paraphrase. Now, I'll say no more about that term . . . I
hope.
> >>> Sonnet 18 has no literal meaning?
>
> >> No -- or not really. The poet MAY or may
> >> not have joined up the bits of the 'superficial
> >> theme', but the extent to which he succeeds
> >> or fails in any particular case is largely
> >> academic.
>
> > You lose me here. I say that the poem's first line literally ask
> > if the poet should compare the subject of the poem to a summer's
> > day. That's its literal meaning. I don't see how even you can
> > deny that.
>
> Firstly, and as I have told you before, the
> comparison is nuts.
But it's there. If you want to deal with the poem fully, you have to
note that it's there and explain why it's nuts but why the poet put it
there. If a poet says his love's eyes are as blue as a pancake, you
can't just say he didn't say that because it makes no sense.
> You merely think it
> acceptable because you have heard this line
> so often.
I could just say you merely think it unacceptable because you need it
to be unacceptable to make Elizabeth the addressee. A critic's
motives are irrelevant.
> Secondly, the rest of the text
> rapidly goes downhill, in terms of ordinary
> sense. You remark on this yourself -- e.g.
> that 'May' is not a summer month.
But it provides a necessary rhyme. Whoops, I'm debating your
interpretation again. I want to wait till later to do that.
> >> [..]
>
> >>>> Mary QS was commonly described as
> >>>> (a) Darnley's (Somer's) fuck, and
>
> >>> I never thought of this. I would like to see one or two such
> >>> descriptions of Mary being called, "Darnley's fuck."
>
> >> You're not going to see anything in print.
> >> I'm saying that it was certain that this
> >> description was applied to her.
>
> > In those words? Can you cite any woman being explicitly called
> > some man's "fuck?" I can accept it as a slang term though it's
> > not one I've come across that I remember.
>
> Webster's:
> 10. a partner in sexual intercourse.
>
> OED
> 1b. concr. A person (usu. a woman) considered in sexual terms.
> 1874 Lett. fr. Friend in Paris II. 168, I had always held
> that dear mamma was the best fuck in the family, and in every way
> a most desirable and splendid creature.
> 1969 S. Greenlee Spook who sat by Door ix. 77 An aborted
> marriage to a favourite fuck.
> 1969 ‘J. Morris’ Fever Grass ii. 26 She was a good fuck.+ She
> was great in bed.
Before 1874?
> > I probably won't answer your reply to this, if there is one. Not
> > because I have no answers but because we're into one of our
> > vacuous whirls, this time about what a paraphrase is, etc.
>
> Fine.
>
Chee, I answered it. But I think we can stop here. You have at least
converted me to the view that the first line could well be a
legitimate pun. I can't deny that it can be interpretted as that. I
do say it isn't there, anyway, because Oxford didn't write the sonnet
and because it doesn't work the rest of the way, as far as I can
tell. But I'll deal with that when I finally officially respond to
your interpretation.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> It's not irrelevant. Further, unlike
>> 'capitalism' or 'poem' it has a simple
>> common well-understood meaning, not
>> involving any kind of controversy.
>
> Uncontroversial, but we're arguing about its meaning. It has no
> simple meaning, Paul. If it does, state it.
I've given you a dictionary definition, which
I fully accept, and I'm sure 99.9% of other
people would do so also.
"a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in
another form, as for clearness; rewording" (Webster's)
> As for "poem" and
> "captialism," their meanings to lots are uncontroversial.
I don't agree. Anyone with more than a basic
understanding would know about the controversies.
> To those
> who deal with them at a specialist's level, they are, like "parphrase"
> when dealt with at a specialist's level, controversial.
Not true. There is nothing that is difficult
or controversial in the term. Obviously a
particular piece of work might be. Those
who do it all the time might invent technical
words for different kinds, or particular
aspects.
[..]
>> OED
>> 1b. concr. A person (usu. a woman) considered in sexual terms.
>> 1874 Lett. fr. Friend in Paris II. 168, I had always held
>> that dear mamma was the best fuck in the family, and in every way
>> a most desirable and splendid creature.
>> 1969 S. Greenlee Spook who sat by Door ix. 77 An aborted
>> marriage to a favourite fuck.
>> 1969 ‘J. Morris’ Fever Grass ii. 26 She was a good fuck.+ She
>> was great in bed.
>
> Before 1874?
The word rarely appears in print.
But no one doubts that it was in
common use -- in all the obvious
senses.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> It's not irrelevant. Further, unlike
> >> 'capitalism' or 'poem' it has a simple
> >> common well-understood meaning, not
> >> involving any kind of controversy.
>
> > Uncontroversial, but we're arguing about its meaning. It has no
> > simple meaning, Paul. If it does, state it.
>
> I've given you a dictionary definition, which
> I fully accept, and I'm sure 99.9% of other
> people would do so also.
>
> "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in
> another form, as for clearness; rewording" (Webster's)
>
> > As for "poem" and
>
> I don't agree. Anyone with more than a basic
> understanding would know about the controversies.
>
> > To those
> > who deal with them at a specialist's level, they are, like "parphrase"
> > when dealt with at a specialist's level, controversial.
>
> Not true. There is nothing that is difficult
> or controversial in the term. Obviously a
> particular piece of work might be. Those
> who do it all the time might invent technical
> words for different kinds, or particular
> aspects.
>
I should listen to myself and not continue this, but it won't take
long. Dictionary definitions are definitions for the masses, not for
those who use words at higher levels than the masses use them. Your
dictionary definition of "paraphrase" is fine, but it isn't detailed
enough for people like me. It doesn't specify what meaning it is a
restatement of, for instance. No reasonable critic would say a
paraphrase could capture the full meaning of a poem. Nor would you.
>
> >> OED
> >> 1b. concr. A person (usu. a woman) considered in sexual terms.
> >> 1874 Lett. fr. Friend in Paris II. 168, I had always held
> >> that dear mamma was the best fuck in the family, and in every way
> >> a most desirable and splendid creature.
> >> 1969 S. Greenlee Spook who sat by Door ix. 77 An aborted
> >> marriage to a favourite fuck.
> >> 1969 ‘J. Morris’ Fever Grass ii. 26 She was a good fuck.+ She
> >> was great in bed.
>
> > Before 1874?
>
> The word rarely appears in print.
> But no one doubts that it was in
> common use -- in all the obvious
> senses.
>
> Paul.
Ah, many are on record taking it for granted it was used that way 250
years before 1874. By the way, since I'm back where I shouldn't be
again: "day" is a noun, as is "fuck"; but was "die," meaning, "have an
orgasm," ever a noun?
And that really is all I am going to say here about your
interpretation until I've made my full response to the poem.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> >2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
> >7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
> >8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
> >9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
> >10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
> >11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
> >12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
> >13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
> >14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
Okay, I've done the first full draft of my paraphrase of Sonnet 18
somewhere on this thread. Now for NOTES toward a draft of my
melodational analysis of the poem. ("Melodation" is my term for the
sound effects of a poem such as alliteration, consonance, etc.) Oh,
for the sake of completeness, I'm making it my habit here to say
everything pertinent about the poem I can think of, no matter how
elementary.
Since the poem is a standard Shakespearean sonnet, its meter is iambic
pentameter--to my ear, exactly iambic pentameter throughout, and it
has seven rhymes or near rhymes. The poet cheats in line ten to get
one rhyme. The meaning requires "ownest," of a slurred version of,
but his rhyme scheme requires, "owest," so "owest" it is. One thing
I'm not going to bother to any degree with is the difference in his
pronunciation of certain words compared with mine. I'm considering
the poem in my time, mainly--the way it sounds and what it means now.
"Temperarate" (line 2) doesn't rhyme with "date" (line 4), for me, but
I accept it as clase enough, and possibly pronounced with a long a
when written.
Shakespeare's rhymes are reasonably uncliched. The day/May one is
probably the most predictable of them, but any poem of this typ will
have rhymes like that. The dimmed/trimmed and shines/clines ones make
up for it.
The rhyme most interesting to me in the poem is the um-rhyme. It
occurs internally seven times in the poem's first nine lines--twice in
the very first line ("COMpare" and "SUMmer"), although a weak-beat/
strong-beat rhyme. I may be wrong--I'll check in due course--but
this seems the way Shakespeare more often than not handles what I call
repenemes (repeated sounds) in this sonnet. See the alliteration of
the w-sound of "wand'rest" in line 11 with "When" in line 12, and the
consonance of the rs-sound of line 8's "Nature's" and "course." The
repenemation is thus more subtle, quiet--soothing, I would add.
The m-sound occurs five other times in the poem, four in the first
eight lines. "Mmmm" is thus a dominant sound.
My impression that there are a lot of gentle (summer) sounds in the
poem----f-, sh-and s-sounds, for instance, and few harsh sounds. Lots
of short words make it flow rapidly. Many repeated words also gentle
it, make it lullaby-simple-seeming--not a great many words to deal
with, and "temperate," "possession" "eternal" (twice)and "complexion"
are the only words in it as long as three syllables and at all
complex.
The internal rhyme of "lives" with "Gives" in the final line makes
that line seems to me to increase its feel of conclusion, as does the
repeated "this" (used in a way for which there's some rhetorical term
I don't know, not knowing rhetorical terms well), on top of the
standard heroic couplet that snaps such sonnets shut at the the end.
So much for the poem's melodation for the moment. I don't feel I've
said all that can profitably be said about it, but have covered more
of it than I've missed.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in
>> another form, as for clearness; rewording" (Webster's)
> I should listen to myself and not continue this, but it won't take
> long. Dictionary definitions are definitions for the masses, not for
> those who use words at higher levels than the masses use them.
Sheer nonsense. For ordinary words there is no
better wisdom than that of 'the masses'. Could
you come up with all the subtle distinctions
between 'a mistake' and 'an accident'? Or do
you think that there is some higher definition
of (say) 'foot' or 'cow'?
>>>> OED
>>>> 1b. concr. A person (usu. a woman) considered in sexual terms.
>>>> 1874 Lett. fr. Friend in Paris II. 168, I had always held
>>>> that dear mamma was the best fuck in the family, and in every way
>>>> a most desirable and splendid creature.
>>>> 1969 S. Greenlee Spook who sat by Door ix. 77 An aborted
>>>> marriage to a favourite fuck.
>>>> 1969 �J. Morris� Fever Grass ii. 26 She was a good fuck.+ She
>>>> was great in bed.
>>>
>>> Before 1874?
>>
>> The word rarely appears in print.
>> But no one doubts that it was in
>> common use -- in all the obvious
>> senses.
>
> Ah, many are on record taking it for granted it was used that way 250
> years before 1874. By the way, since I'm back where I shouldn't be
> again: "day" is a noun, as is "fuck"; but was "die," meaning, "have an
> orgasm," ever a noun?
The noun is 'death'. A 'small death' was an
orgasm. It is used by Shake-speare in that sense.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in
> >> another form, as for clearness; rewording" (Webster's)
> > I should listen to myself and not continue this, but it won't take
> > long. Dictionary definitions are definitions for the masses, not for
> > those who use words at higher levels than the masses use them.
>
> Sheer nonsense. For ordinary words there is no
> better wisdom than that of 'the masses'. Could
> you come up with all the subtle distinctions
> between 'a mistake' and 'an accident'?
You've lost me. The masses have lots of definitions for most words; a
specialist tends only to have to single definition best for its use in
his field--or tries to have such a definition.
> Or do you think that there is some higher definition
> of (say) 'foot' or 'cow'?
Gee, I dunno. But just maybe my foot doctor might be able to come up
with a better definition of a foot than "the thing you walk on." In
fact, he might be able to write a whole book defining it--and feel he
hadn't done the job. A zoologist might be able to define a cow at a
higher level than, say, a farmer--who'd be able to define it at a
higher level than, say, a policeman.
Is an average man's definition of a computer adequate, in your view?
How is it that the masses are so good with words but think Shakespeare
wrote Shakespeare's works?
> The noun is 'death'. A 'small death' was an
> orgasm. It is used by Shake-speare in that sense.
>
The problem is that the pun you hear in the poem is "die," not
"death."
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>>>> "a restatement of a text or passage giving the meaning in
>>>> another form, as for clearness; rewording" (Webster's)
>>>
>>> I should listen to myself and not continue this, but it won't take
>>> long. Dictionary definitions are definitions for the masses, not for
>>> those who use words at higher levels than the masses use them.
>>
>> Sheer nonsense. For ordinary words there is no
>> better wisdom than that of 'the masses'. Could
>> you come up with all the subtle distinctions
>> between 'a mistake' and 'an accident'?
>
> You've lost me. The masses have lots of definitions for most
> words; a specialist tends only to have to single definition best
> for its use in his field--or tries to have such a definition.
You are operating with some theory of meaning that
is long outdated: perhaps the 'picture theory of
meaning'. Words do not have meanings because they
are defined, nor because someone once defined them.
They have meanings because they are USED in certain
ways, and not in others.
>> Or do you think that there is some higher definition
>> of (say) 'foot' or 'cow'?
>
> Gee, I dunno. But just maybe my foot doctor might be able to
> come up with a better definition of a foot than "the thing you
> walk on."
We all know what 'feet' are. A foot-doctor will
need a more detailed description than others,
but not another definition.
> Is an average man's definition of a computer adequate, in your
> view?
I have no idea what would be a good definition
of such a thing, nor how anyone would arrive at
one. They are modern, and changing all the time.
> How is it that the masses are so good with words but
> think Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare's works?
They don't think about words, they merely use
them, and have been using them for tens of
thousands of years. What works has survived;
what fails dies. So there is a mass consensus
on ordinary words. That's why when some dope
tries to invent new ones (without a new
invention), or redefine old ones, he is on a
complete loser.
>> The noun is 'death'. A 'small death' was an
>> orgasm. It is used by Shake-speare in that sense.
>>
> The problem is that the pun you hear in the poem is "die," not
> "death."
It is not a problem to me. You merely asked
for the noun (for some unknown reason) and
I answered.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
>
> - Show quoted text -
Paul, when one does verosophy, or some kind of serious seeking of
knowledge, one must define one's terms, then adhere to one's
definitions. Sometimes one doing verosophy only needs the common
definition of some common term, but when doing more sophisticated
verosphizing, one needs better definitions. One also needs new
words. Scientists, one kind of verosopher, make them up all the
time. So do philosophers, the other major kind of verosopher.
This pertains to poetry explication/interpreatation, which is what
we're discussing in this thread because that is a form of literary
criticism. Literary criticism is a form of aesthetics. Aesthetics is
a form of philosophy. And, finally, philosophy is a form of
verosophy.
This is all outside your experience, which is why I have to end this
part of our conversation here.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> Paul, when one does verosophy
One of the major differences between us is that
you have little or no respect for the language
you use. You think that you are free to introduce
new terms like 'versophy', as though you could
grant it meaning, by some wave of your magic wand.
Firstly, there is no need for any new term. You
and I are in this particular case trying to establish
how to use the word 'paraphrase. We are not, in
principle, doing anything different from what
millions of people have done before. Just to seek
to introduce a new term (like 'versophy') is to
insult their memory and to claim you have some
fresh insight, not available to them. Secondly,
there is no way you can hope to give sense to any
such new term.
> or some kind of serious seeking of
> knowledge, one must define one's terms, then adhere to one's
> definitions.
Definitions in terms of what? Do you then define
each word in your definition? And do you then
define each word in those definitions? And then
define each word in the next level? Do you
think you can somehow escape from using words?
> Sometimes one doing verosophy only needs the common
> definition of some common term, but when doing more sophisticated
> verosphizing, one needs better definitions. One also needs new
> words. Scientists, one kind of verosopher, make them up all the
> time.
Scientists only do it when they have a new invention
or new concept. And they take enormous care over many
of them, debating them for -- literally -- centuries.
Do you know what 'mass' is, in scientific terms? Or
how for long it has been a controversial topic?
> So do philosophers, the other major kind of verosopher.
No, they don't. Not competent ones, anyway.
> This pertains to poetry explication/interpreatation, which is what
> we're discussing in this thread because that is a form of literary
> criticism. Literary criticism is a form of aesthetics. Aesthetics is
> a form of philosophy. And, finally, philosophy is a form of
> verosophy.
Yeah, yeah. But it does help if you know who
the author is, to whom he is writing, and what
he is writing about.
Btw, do you expect a response (from me or anyone
else) to your 'melodation' post on Sonnet 18?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Btw, do you expect a response (from me or anyone
> else) to your 'melodation' post on Sonnet 18?
>
> Paul.
As I said, feel free to comment on anything you want to but I won't
respond to any comments on my work-in-progress until it's become what
I consider a reasonable finished rough draft.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
1. Is what you posted about Sonnet 18 your full discussion of the
poem?
2. Since I mean by "verosophy" any significant rational search for
truth (e.g. science, history, philosophy, but not finding out who
murdered Joe Smith or who is the fastest miler), what term in use
would be just as good for its purpose as it?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> Two questions in passing for you, Paul.
>
> 1. Is what you posted about Sonnet 18 your full discussion of
> the poem?
It's enough for the moment. I'm sure that
there is much more that could be said about
it -- very much more. But I'm pretty sure
that I'm done -- at least for some time.
Five minutes later -- I now remember that
I am not happy with my treatment of the
sextet -- the last six lines. The figures
of 'death' and 'eternal Sommer' may well
represent people -- English courtiers.
I need to think about it.
> 2. Since I mean by "verosophy" any significant rational search
> for truth (e.g. science, history, philosophy, but not finding
> out who murdered Joe Smith or who is the fastest miler), what
> term in use would be just as good for its purpose as it?
I don't know what is in your mind --
or whether it amounts to anything at
all. I suspect the latter. However,
the English language is good enough
for me; it was good enough for Shake-
speare, and for hundreds of thousands
of other writers, before and since.
It should be good enough for you.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > Two questions in passing for you, Paul.
>
> > 1. Is what you posted about Sonnet 18 your full discussion of
> > the poem?
>
> It's enough for the moment. I'm sure that
> there is much more that could be said about
> it -- very much more. But I'm pretty sure
> that I'm done -- at least for some time.
>
> Five minutes later -- I now remember that
> I am not happy with my treatment of the
> sextet -- the last six lines. The figures
> of 'death' and 'eternal Sommer' may well
> represent people -- English courtiers.
> I need to think about it.
Do you think you would ever add anything to your discussion of the
sonnet besides new connections between it and your perception of what
was going on in Europe at the time? I ask, because I think you have
done a historical analysis of the sonnet but not an aesthetic analysis
of it. It is a work of art, you know.
> > 2. Since I mean by "verosophy" any significant rational search
> > for truth (e.g. science, history, philosophy, but not finding
> > out who murdered Joe Smith or who is the fastest miler), what
> > term in use would be just as good for its purpose as it?
>
> I don't know what is in your mind --
> or whether it amounts to anything at
> all. I suspect the latter.
Good dodge. I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
word that means "any significant search for truth such as science,
history and philosophy when followed rationally" by citing it. You
can't.
> However,
> the English language is good enough
> for me; it was good enough for Shake-
> speare, and for hundreds of thousands
> of other writers, before and since.
> It should be good enough for you.
>
> Paul.
Right, Shakespeare never added a word to the English language because
it was good enough for him. No new words from Mendel or Newton. No
new words from presentday drug manufacturers. In fact, now new words
of any value in hundreds of years. Tell me truthfully, Paul, have you
ever read any philosopher who created a system who didn't make up any
words to go with it?
--Bob G.
John W Kennedy
> Good dodge. I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
> word that means "any significant search for truth such as science,
> history and philosophy when followed rationally" by citing it. You
> can't.
I can. "Philosophy".
--
John W. Kennedy
"I want everybody to be smart. As smart as they can be. A world of
ignorant people is too dangerous to live in."
-- Garson Kanin. "Born Yesterday"
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > Good dodge. I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
> > word that means "any significant search for truth such as science,
> > history and philosophy when followed rationally" by citing it. You
> > can't.
>
> I can. "Philosophy".
> --
> John W. Kennedy
So a scientist is a philosopher? If so, we have "philosophy," like
"art," meaning a generality and a specific--something mediocrities
don't mind, but I do. (I refuse to use "art" as "visual art" (unless
having to discuss it with someone in that person's terms).
--Bob G.
John W Kennedy
> On Nov 21, 9:17 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>>> Good dodge. I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
>>> word that means "any significant search for truth such as science,
>>> history and philosophy when followed rationally" by citing it. You
>>> can't.
>> I can. "Philosophy".
>> --
>> John W. Kennedy
>
> So a scientist is a philosopher?
Yes.
> If so, we have "philosophy," like
> "art," meaning a generality and a specific--something mediocrities
> don't mind, but I do.
The English language doesn't care whether you mind. If you think
"philosophy" is bad, don't even think about "nature" or "world".
--
John W. Kennedy
If Bill Gates believes in "intelligent design", why can't he apply it
to Windows?
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > On Nov 21, 9:17 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> Good dodge. I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
> >>> word that means "any significant search for truth such as science,
> >>> history and philosophy when followed rationally" by citing it. You
> >>> can't.
> >> I can. "Philosophy".
> >> --
> >> John W. Kennedy
>
> > So a scientist is a philosopher?
>
> Yes.
>
> > If so, we have "philosophy," like
> > "art," meaning a generality and a specific--something mediocrities
> > don't mind, but I do.
>
> The English language doesn't care whether you mind. If you think
> "philosophy" is bad, don't even think about "nature" or "world".
>
Lots of words have multiple meanings. But I don't think "nature" or
"world" mean either a group of specific things or something in that
group of things. "Philosophy" is almost always used--formally, I
should say--to mean something quite different from "history" or
"science." But I'll change my request to: "cite an English word that
ONLY means 'any significant (large-scale) search for truth such as
science, history and poetics when followed rationally."" I say such a
word would be useful. My similar coinage, "pseudosophy," is even more
useful, I believe, for covering not just pseudo-science, but Crowleyan
literary studies, and the like.
--Bob G.
John W Kennedy
> On Nov 22, 1:01 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>>> On Nov 21, 9:17 pm, John W Kennedy <jwke...@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
>>>>> Good dodge. I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
>>>>> word that means "any significant search for truth such as science,
>>>>> history and philosophy when followed rationally" by citing it. You
>>>>> can't.
>>>> I can. "Philosophy".
>>>> --
>>>> John W. Kennedy
>>> So a scientist is a philosopher?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> If so, we have "philosophy," like
>>> "art," meaning a generality and a specific--something mediocrities
>>> don't mind, but I do.
>> The English language doesn't care whether you mind. If you think
>> "philosophy" is bad, don't even think about "nature" or "world".
>>
>
> Lots of words have multiple meanings. But I don't think "nature" or
> "world" mean either a group of specific things or something in that
> group of things.
Read the chapters s.vv. in Lewis's "Studies in Worlds" (a work that
should be read by anyone with an interest in language anyway).
> But I'll change my request to: "cite an English word that
> ONLY means 'any significant (large-scale) search for truth such as
> science, history and poetics when followed rationally.'"
Unfortunately, "rational" already bears the effective meaning (among
others, of course), "in agreement with me and my party", and any word
you may come up with is going to bleed from that same wound.
--
John W. Kennedy
"Never try to take over the international economy based on a radical
feminist agenda if you're not sure your leader isn't a transvestite."
-- David Misch: "She-Spies", "While You Were Out"
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> John W Kennedy wrote:
> >
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > >
> > > John W Kennedy wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Good dodge. I'm asking you to show that the English language
> > > > > has a word that means "any significant search for truth such
> > > > > as science, history and philosophy when followed rationally"
> > > > > by citing it. You can't.
> > > >
> > > > I can. "Philosophy".
> > >
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > If so, we have "philosophy," like "art," meaning a generality
> > and a specific--something mediocrities don't mind, but I do.
> >
> > The English language doesn't care whether you mind. If you think
> > "philosophy" is bad, don't even think about "nature" or "world".
>
> Lots of words have multiple meanings. But I don't think
> "nature" or "world" mean either a group of specific things
> or something in that group of things. "Philosophy" is
> thing quite different from "history" or "science." But
> I'll change my request to: "cite an English word that
> ONLY means 'any significant (large-scale) search for truth
> such as science, history and poetics when followed rationally."
> I say such a word would be useful. My similar coinage,
> "pseudosophy," is even more useful, I believe, for covering
> not just pseudo-science, but Crowleyan literary studies, and
> the like.
For me, the acid test should not be whether *you* find such a
word as "verosophy" useful in saying what you really mean, but
whether it makes it easier for your *readers* to understand you.
And speaking for myself I have to tell you that your neologisms
usually make it harder for me to understand what you are saying
rather than easier, even though you clearly define them for us.
The more useful coinages (such as 'Crowleyan' above) normally
require no definition anyway.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> <http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I think the unusual language in any field of study will give readers
trouble. The main reason I didn't become a biochemist, which is
probably the field I'd have done best in (in the eyes of the world)
was all the terminology, even though it is necessary and makes sense.
I write for those who will take the time to understand me. Another
consideration: making oneself clear using the language of the masses
is incredibly hard, and impossible to do without saying five times
more than you can with special language. Also, if you work up a trul
original theory of anything large, you have to have things in that
need names--and definitions.
I'll confess to another virtue of neologies, which is that when they
catch on, they can make a writer. Freud, for instance. Nietzsche
(Apollonian and Dyonisian); Reisman (inner- and other-directed
persons). The guy whose name I forget who pushed body types like
mesomorph was helped by his neologies. I hate to admit it, but I
thought "rigidnik" would do that for me, but no one uses it except
Crowley! Other than I, needless to say.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> For me, the acid test should not be whether *you* find such a
> word as "verosophy" useful in saying what you really mean, but
> whether it makes it easier for your *readers* to understand you.
First of all, I think ultimately any form of . . . verosophy is a
matter simply of naming things and defining them by showing how they
relate to everything else in existence, but are unlike anything else.
The verosopher has to make his initial terms clear to himself. He has
to assume this will make his verosophy clearer to others. He can't
know what will do that, though, he can only know what makes it clear
to himself.
> And speaking for myself I have to tell you that your neologisms
> usually make it harder for me to understand what you are saying
> rather than easier, even though you clearly define them for us.
How can you know that, Peter? How can you be sure that my texts would
not be much more difficult to understand if there were no neologies in
them. In any case, when you very helpfully (no sarcasm intended)
voiced this opinion when reading my theory of temperaments, I agreed
with it in a way. I decided my neologies were often necessary but
that some I could do without, and that I could do a better job
presenting the others. They need mainly to be introduced more
gradually, and in more interesting contexts at probably greater
length. I did this in my improved rendering of my chapter on
temperaments. I believe you never had time to read that.
> The more useful coinages (such as 'Crowleyan' above) normally
> require no definition anyway.
I'm not sure that every reader would know who Alistair was.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
> Do you think you would ever add anything to your discussion of the
> sonnet besides new connections between it and your perception of what
> was going on in Europe at the time? I ask, because I think you have
> done a historical analysis of the sonnet but not an aesthetic analysis
> of it. It is a work of art, you know.
The first step in any appreciation of a
work of art is to understand the artist's
intentions, and the attitudes and sense of
humour that he brought to it. If he has
(say) covert allusions to particular people,
then it is almost always vital to be able
to see them. Once those are known, a
discussion of the 'aesthetic elements'
becomes possible, but is often fairly
pointless. Do you find technical accounts
of (say) Beethoven symphonies illuminating?
>>> 2. Since I mean by "verosophy" any significant rational search
>>> for truth (e.g. science, history, philosophy, but not finding
>>> out who murdered Joe Smith or who is the fastest miler), what
>>> term in use would be just as good for its purpose as it?
>>
>> I don't know what is in your mind --
>> or whether it amounts to anything at
>> all. I suspect the latter.
>
> Good dodge.
Not a dodge. Statements of fact.
> I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
> word that means "any significant search for truth such as
> science, history and philosophy when followed rationally"
> by citing it. You can't.
If there is no word, it means that there was
no pressing need for one in the past 1,000
years or so, which means in turn that few
thought it necessary or desirable. Of that
if they did, they were not able to achieve
any kind of consensus that there was one
distinct process that should have one name.
It is most unlikely that you will have out-
thought all those people, and extremely likely
(on the general basis of what humans do) that
you are merely developing your own BS.
>> However,
>> the English language is good enough
>> for me; it was good enough for Shake-
>> speare, and for hundreds of thousands
>> of other writers, before and since.
>> It should be good enough for you.
>
> Right, Shakespeare never added a word to the English language
> because it was good enough for him.
I doubt if he added many. And those he did
would be simple constructions, (say) putting
'un-' or 'in-' before well established
adjectives.
> No new words from Mendel or Newton. No new words from presentday
> drug manufacturers.
New products. There is nothing new that you
are doing in 'versophy' -- or there should be
nothing new.
> In fact, now new words of any value in hundreds of years. Tell me
> truthfully, Paul, have you ever read any philosopher who created a
> system who didn't make up any words to go with it?
Wittgenstein didn't.
Paul.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Peter Farey wrote:
> >
> > For me, the acid test should not be whether *you* find such a
> > word as "verosophy" useful in saying what you really mean, but
> > whether it makes it easier for your *readers* to understand you.
>
> ing how they relate to everything else in existence, but are
> unlike anything else. The verosopher has to make his initial
> terms clear to himself. He has to assume this will make his
> verosophy clearer to others. He can't know what will do that,
> though, he can only know what makes it clear to himself.
Initially, of course, but there's a very simple way of finding
out, isn't there?
> > And speaking for myself I have to tell you that your neologisms
> > usually make it harder for me to understand what you are saying
> > rather than easier, even though you clearly define them for us.
>
> How can you know that, Peter? How can you be sure that my
> texts would not be much more difficult to understand if there
> were no neologies in them.
Bob, I have no objection to your coining such terms as rigidnik,
millyoop or freewender, since they summarize a whole host of
characteristics which it would be too tedious to repeat every
time. In the same way, I came up with new terms (albeit using
combinations of existing words) to describe eight different
management 'types' in a model I developed. (Test yourself at
<http://www.360facilitated.com/lmtypes.htm>)
Where I have trouble is in those cases where you invent a word
for something which can already be easily expressed in English
as it stands. 'Verosophy' is a good example. As JWK points out,
the word 'philosophy' already has the meaning you require, so
all you need to do is explain that it is this meaning you are
using rather than the more restricted one. If you don't do this,
then I'm afraid that my irritation at what *seems* to me to be
an arrogant disregard of the way philosophers have satisfact-
orily used our language over the years gets in the way of any
attempt to understand what you are actually saying.
I also have a preference for metaphor over neologism. For
example, rather than your 'melodation' or Pound's 'melopoeia'
which predated it, I much prefer Stephen Fry's 'sound-scape'
(from music) which he used in defining Pound's word!
> In any case, when you very helpfully (no sarcasm intended)
> voiced this opinion when reading my theory of temperaments,
> I agreed with it in a way. I decided my neologies were often
> necessary but that some I could do without, and that I could
> do a better job presenting the others. They need mainly to
> be introduced more gradually, and in more interesting contexts
> at probably greater length. I did this in my improved render-
> ing of my chapter on temperaments. I believe you never had
> time to read that.
I'm sorry, Bob. I have no recollection of you ever posting a
new improved version.
> > The more useful coinages (such as 'Crowleyan' above) normally
> > require no definition anyway.
> I'm not sure that every reader would know who Alistair was.
Tee-hee.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> > Peter Farey wrote:
>
> > > For me, the acid test should not be whether *you* find such a
> > > word as "verosophy" useful in saying what you really mean, but
> > > whether it makes it easier for your *readers* to understand you.
>
> > First of all, I think ultimately any form of . . . verosophy
> > is a matter simply of naming things and defining them by show-
> > ing how they relate to everything else in existence, but are
> > unlike anything else. The verosopher has to make his initial
> > terms clear to himself. He has to assume this will make his
> > verosophy clearer to others. He can't know what will do that,
> > though, he can only know what makes it clear to himself.
>
> Initially, of course, but there's a very simple way of finding
> out, isn't there?
None that I know of, Peter. I had a friend (dead now) to whom I
showed my verosophical writings and she understood them fairly well.
But no one else who'd want to read them, and would have been capable
of much understanding of them in any form. The establishment, of
course, won't publish or even peer-review them.
There is also the question of the reader's understanding of context.
Maybe a given exposition of a theory is so screwed up that the reader
can't follow it, with or without neologies. He might think the
neologies are tough when they wouldn't be if the over-all theory made
sense.
The main problem is when you want a term to be understood. On first
reading? I didn't start college till in my thirties. When I did, I
took an English class and felt Very Stupid. The kids in the class
were throwing terms around that baffled me. I thought they were all
much smarter than I. Three classes later I'd caught on. But a
superior piece of verosophy and its terminology will probably take a
generation or more to start getting some kind of intelligent
understanding, particularly if it's not coming out of the
establishment.
> > > And speaking for myself I have to tell you that your neologisms
> > > usually make it harder for me to understand what you are saying
> > > rather than easier, even though you clearly define them for us.
>
> > How can you know that, Peter? How can you be sure that my
> > texts would not be much more difficult to understand if there
> > were no neologies in them.
>
> Bob, I have no objection to your coining such terms as rigidnik,
> millyoop or freewender, since they summarize a whole host of
> characteristics which it would be too tedious to repeat every
> time. In the same way, I came up with new terms (albeit using
> combinations of existing words) to describe eight different
> management 'types' in a model I developed. (Test yourself at
> <http://www.360facilitated.com/lmtypes.htm>)
>
> Where I have trouble is in those cases where you invent a word
> for something which can already be easily expressed in English
> as it stands. 'Verosophy' is a good example. As JWK points out,
> the word 'philosophy' already has the meaning you require, so
> all you need to do is explain that it is this meaning you are
> using rather than the more restricted one. If you don't do this,
> then I'm afraid that my irritation at what *seems* to me to be
> an arrogant disregard of the way philosophers have satisfact-
> orily used our language over the years gets in the way of any
> attempt to understand what you are actually saying.
I hate to sound like Paul, but can you point to anyone in print post
1800 who has used the term "philosophy" as a general reference to all
the the sciences, history, political science, and branches of
philosophy not considered sciences? I say the term has come very
decidedly to mean those who do epistemology and/or aesthetics and/or
ethics, etc. Even so, I would arrogantly say that using it stupidly
is wrong no matter how long it, like "art," has been used stupidly.
> I also have a preference for metaphor over neologism. For
> example, rather than your 'melodation' or Pound's 'melopoeia'
> which predated it, I much prefer Stephen Fry's 'sound-scape'
> (from music) which he used in defining Pound's word!
To each his own, but a (minor) problem with Fry's word is that it
yields not usable adjective--like "melodational." Also, when making
up words for a verosophical system, one should try for words that have
a family resemblance to each other, so easier to remember and easier
to identify with the system they are part of.
> > In any case, when you very helpfully (no sarcasm intended)
> > voiced this opinion when reading my theory of temperaments,
> > I agreed with it in a way. I decided my neologies were often
> > necessary but that some I could do without, and that I could
> > do a better job presenting the others. They need mainly to
> > be introduced more gradually, and in more interesting contexts
> > at probably greater length. I did this in my improved render-
> > ing of my chapter on temperaments. I believe you never had
> > time to read that.
>
> I'm sorry, Bob. I have no recollection of you ever posting a
> new improved version.
Maybe you read it and thought it was the old one.
> > > The more useful coinages (such as 'Crowleyan' above) normally
> > > require no definition anyway.
> > I'm not sure that every reader would know who Alistair was.
>
> Tee-hee.
>
> Peter F.
Thanks for the response even though I only had boilerplate to pay you
back with. But that helps me, because the more I use my boilerplate,
the better at using it I get.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > Do you think you would ever add anything to your discussion of the
> > sonnet besides new connections between it and your perception of what
> > was going on in Europe at the time? I ask, because I think you have
> > done a historical analysis of the sonnet but not an aesthetic analysis
> > of it. It is a work of art, you know.
>
> The first step in any appreciation of a
> work of art is to understand the artist's
> intentions, and the attitudes and sense of
> humour that he brought to it. If he has
> (say) covert allusions to particular people,
> then it is almost always vital to be able
> to see them. Once those are known, a
> discussion of the 'aesthetic elements'
> becomes possible, but is often fairly
> pointless. Do you find technical accounts
> of (say) Beethoven symphonies illuminating?
Not at all. All I'm interested in is what person each theme in his
work repesented.
5
> >>> 2. Since I mean by "verosophy" any significant rational search
> >>> for truth (e.g. science, history, philosophy, but not finding
> >>> out who murdered Joe Smith or who is the fastest miler), what
> >>> term in use would be just as good for its purpose as it?
>
> >> I don't know what is in your mind --
> >> or whether it amounts to anything at
> >> all. I suspect the latter.
>
> > Good dodge.
>
> Not a dodge. Statements of fact.
>
> > I'm asking you to show that the English language has a
> > word that means "any significant search for truth such as
> > science, history and philosophy when followed rationally"
> > by citing it. You can't.
>
> If there is no word, it means that there was
> no pressing need for one in the past 1,000
> years or so, which means in turn that few
> thought it necessary or desirable. Of that
> if they did, they were not able to achieve
> any kind of consensus that there was one
> distinct process that should have one name.
> It is most unlikely that you will have out-
> thought all those people, and extremely likely
> (on the general basis of what humans do) that
> you are merely developing your own BS.
As every thinker does. Including the great Paul Crowley, who is
outthinking 400 years of intelligent people who found no need to
hypothesize a True Author. But that's different, as you will explain
to us again.
> >> However,
> >> the English language is good enough
> >> for me; it was good enough for Shake-
> >> speare, and for hundreds of thousands
> >> of other writers, before and since.
> >> It should be good enough for you.
>
> > Right, Shakespeare never added a word to the English language
> > because it was good enough for him.
>
> I doubt if he added many. And those he did
> would be simple constructions, (say) putting
> 'un-' or 'in-' before well established
> adjectives.
>
> > No new words from Mendel or Newton. No new words from presentday
> > drug manufacturers.
>
> New products. There is nothing new that you
> are doing in 'verOsophy' -- or there should be
> nothing new.
You haven't read very much of my verosophy (spell it right, please),
so can't know that. But there are new things in it.
> > In fact, now new words of any value in hundreds of years. Tell me
> > truthfully, Paul, have you ever read any philosopher who created a
> > system who didn't make up any words to go with it?
>
> Wittgenstein didn't.
>
> Paul.
Did he create a system? He's a trivial nihilist (or maybe just a
favorite of trivial nihilists) to me, so I haven't much studied him.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>> If there is no word, it means that there was
>> no pressing need for one in the past 1,000
>> years or so, which means in turn that few
>> thought it necessary or desirable. Of that
>> if they did, they were not able to achieve
>> any kind of consensus that there was one
>> distinct process that should have one name.
>> It is most unlikely that you will have out-
>> thought all those people, and extremely likely
>> (on the general basis of what humans do) that
>> you are merely developing your own BS.
>
> As every thinker does.
As every thinker does what?
Few claim to out-think past philosophers.
Few of those seek to create new words.
Most who do so are like you, and simply
have a mistaken concept of how words work,
believing that they can be invented on
the fly.
> Including the great Paul Crowley, who
> is outthinking 400 years of intelligent people who found no
> need to hypothesize a True Author.
They thought they had the right guy --
but one who was a near-faceless entity.
Inevitably, this lead them to misread the
works, especially the Sonnets.
> But that's different, as you will explain to us again.
A simple factual issue -- not particularly
hard to sort out.
>>> In fact, now new words of any value in hundreds of years. Tell me
>>> truthfully, Paul, have you ever read any philosopher who created a
>>> system who didn't make up any words to go with it?
>> Wittgenstein didn't.
>>
>> Paul.
>
> Did he create a system?
He hated 'systems' and those who pretended
to create them.
> He's a trivial nihilist (or maybe just a favorite of trivial
> nihilists) to me, so I haven't much studied him.
There are a few who don't understand him, but
pretend to. They invariably make those facts
quite clear. But I don't know of any I'd call
'nihilist'.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >> If there is no word, it means that there was
> >> no pressing need for one in the past 1,000
> >> years or so, which means in turn that few
> >> thought it necessary or desirable. Of that
> >> if they did, they were not able to achieve
> >> any kind of consensus that there was one
> >> distinct process that should have one name.
> >> It is most unlikely that you will have out-
> >> thought all those people, and extremely likely
> >> (on the general basis of what humans do) that
> >> you are merely developing your own BS.
>
> > As every thinker does.
>
> As every thinker does what?
develops his own bs
> Few claim to out-think past philosophers.
> Few of those seek to create new words.
> Most who do so are like you, and simply
> have a mistaken concept of how words work,
> believing that they can be invented on
> the fly.
> > Including the great Paul Crowley, who
> > is outthinking 400 years of intelligent people who found no
> > need to hypothesize a True Author.
>
> They thought they had the right guy --
> but one who was a near-faceless entity.
> Inevitably, this lead them to misread the
> works, especially the Sonnets.
Right. But you've out-thought them.
> > But that's different, as you will explain to us again.
>
> A simple factual issue -- not particularly
> hard to sort out.
But just about nobody has--but YOU.
> >>> In fact, now new words of any value in hundreds of years. Tell me
> >>> truthfully, Paul, have you ever read any philosopher who created a
> >>> system who didn't make up any words to go with it?
> >> Wittgenstein didn't.
>
> >> Paul.
>
> > Did he create a system?
>
> He hated 'systems' and those who pretended
> to create them.
Exactly. I asked for a philosopher who created a system who didn't
make up words. A vacuous nihilist like Wittgenstein who merely
critiques others' systems needs no new words.
> > He's a trivial nihilist (or maybe just a favorite of trivial
> > nihilists) to me, so I haven't much studied him.
>
> There are a few who don't understand him, but
> pretend to. They invariably make those facts
> quite clear. But I don't know of any I'd call
> 'nihilist'.
I'm referring to the philosophical relativists who throw his name into
discussions. I don't keep track of their names.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>>> If there is no word, it means that there was
>>>> no pressing need for one in the past 1,000
>>>> years or so, which means in turn that few
>>>> thought it necessary or desirable. Of that
>>>> if they did, they were not able to achieve
>>>> any kind of consensus that there was one
>>>> distinct process that should have one name.
>>>> It is most unlikely that you will have out-
>>>> thought all those people, and extremely likely
>>>> (on the general basis of what humans do) that
>>>> you are merely developing your own BS.
>>>
>>> As every thinker does.
>>
>> As every thinker does what?
>
> develops his own bs
Sure -- but my phrase was 'merely . . "
I am saying that if you want a sound
guarantee that a thinker has gone off
into a world of BS, ask if he is starting
to use neologisms.
>>> Including the great Paul Crowley, who
>>> is outthinking 400 years of intelligent people who found no
>>> need to hypothesize a True Author.
>>
>> They thought they had the right guy --
>> but one who was a near-faceless entity.
>> Inevitably, this lead them to misread the
>> works, especially the Sonnets.
>
> Right. But you've out-thought them.
Not really. I just looked in the right place.
>>> But that's different, as you will explain to us again.
>>
>> A simple factual issue -- not particularly
>> hard to sort out.
>
> But just about nobody has--but YOU.
While all Oxfordians know that the poet
was a courtier, I was the first to look
at him as a courtier-poet. A huge break-
through, but remarkable mainly in that
no one had done it before.
>> He hated 'systems' and those who pretended
>> to create them.
>
> Exactly. I asked for a philosopher who created a system who
> didn't make up words. A vacuous nihilist like Wittgenstein
> who merely critiques others' systems needs no new words.
Wittgenstein was no nihilist.
And he was the opposite of vacuous.
Paul.
Ignoto
No, he is a nihilist, on his 'theory' speech cannot be distinguished
from silence. (See Stanley Rosen, Nihilism: A Philosophical Essay)
Ign.
>
> Paul.
Paul Crowley
>> Wittgenstein was no nihilist.
>> And he was the opposite of vacuous.
>
> No, he is a nihilist, on his 'theory' speech cannot be
> distinguished from silence. (See Stanley Rosen, Nihilism: A
> Philosophical Essay)
I doubt if I will locate that book any time
soon. In the meantime, I cannot see how
he could be said to be a nihilist. IMO it is
much more likely that Rosen has the wrong
end of some stick -- as is routine for
academics when it comes to Wittgenstein.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
I posted here, but I can't find it. Nor can I find the handwritten
notes I based the post on. Frustrating. So, here's another try.
I'll begin with just a list of the images in the poem:
summer (3 times)
summer's day (which is not just summer)
day
winds
buds of May
buds
wind-shaken buds of May
wind-shaken buds
May
the sun
the sky ("heaven")
clouds (implied by "dimmed" sun)
Nature
Death (as a person)
a wandering person
Hades (or Death's "shade")
a poem, or the lines of a poem
men
eyes
These reduce to three imagery-complexes:
a summer day
a dark place
a poem
And those reduce to a sort of master imagery-complex: a poem in the
mind of someone reading it which contains a superlatively fine summer
day made all the finer by its contrast with a kind of dark nullity.
The "buds of May" do not belong unless we consider them as blossoms
that were buds, but now referred to the way I believe Dylan Thomas
referred to grown men as "boys of summer." I can't find the poem he
did this in, but my recollection he used the phrase in the sense of
"look at what the boys of summer have become," of the like. Or as one
might say of someone that he is the child of the sixties. "Rough
winds do shake (what were) the darling buds of May." Or "rough winds
do shake the darling buds of May (now blossoming)." This is all
strained. I just want to get around the fact that Shakespeare needed
a rhyme and didn't care about logic. I don't hold that error is okay
in poetry. It is always a defect--but sometimes, as here, a defect
which nonetheless makes the poem it's in better than the poem would be
if it weren't there.
The poem is about a whole day, not just a moment in a day.
The images are few, common and simple. This is not a poem of imagery,
but a poem using imagery. I don't think there's much to say about its
imagery, yet I don't think I've gotten into as deeply as I should.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
few other things I wrote in my 20 November entry to my blog. I forgot
to paste it here, which I will now do. One thing should be of
interest: how what I said then about the poem's imagery compares with
what I said in my entry on it today. I think I said a few new things
today, but left out some of what I said before. Anyway, here is the
"lost" text:
November 20: Continuation of my analysis of Shakespeare's Sonnet 18
today:
> >1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
> >2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
> >3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
> >4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
> >5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
> >6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
> >7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
> >8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
> >9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
> >10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
> >11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
> >12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
> >13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
> >14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee.
First of all, a few notes to myself. A poem is a narrative or an
argument or both or neither--I so far think. I would welcome anything
else of that nature it might have. I thought at first it could be a
setting, but decided a setting would be an image-complex, so covered
by the category of a poem's constituents I call "imagery" in my
poetics. A narrative is the story it tells, if any; an argument its
attempt to make some point, if any. Many poems tell a story to make
some point. Most of the best lyric poems (which are, realy, the only
poems I'm talking about) tell no story and make no significant point.
Now to the imagery of Shakespeare's eighteenth sonnet. I sometimes
think the most important thing a poem is, is a collection of images,
preferably not so much a collection but a unified cluster of images.
Images in themselves give us pleasure, so causing us to experience
them vividly is unarguably an action of the highest value. But other
things a poem can do with images are even more valuable, as I will
eventually show, I hope.
Sonnet 18 is rather light in imagery for a world-class poem. Here's my
list of the ones I found in it:
a Summers day
darling buds of Maie
Sommer
the eye of heauen
(the sun's) gold complexion
Sommer
death
(death's) shade
lines (of a poem)
Or: summer, twice referred to; a summer's day, which is different
however closely related to the prior image; the sun (and I ignore the
metaphor os the sun as an eye here because I don't think it says
anything more than "sun in the sky"; the sun's color; an
anthropomorphic death; Hades; and, maybe, a printed poem. I consider
the person the poem addresses too distant from the scene the poem
portrays to count as an image.
The image-complex is basically a pleasant day in summer in contrast
(briefly) to a dark eternity in some afterworld. The "darling buds of
May" don't precisely belong, but May is close to summer, and since the
poem so strongly pictures summer, I take the buds to mean "what the
buds of May are now that summer is here"--and "summer blossoms as
actually buds reaching fulfillment." It's a bit strained, but it or
something like it must have made enough sense in some unconscious way
to readers over the years else we would have heard comments about the
incorrectness of "May." And other poets have done things I think
similar. An example may be Dylan Thomas's "the boys of summer." My
vague recollection of it is that he referred to men no longer "boys of
summer" as "boys of summer." Surely other poets have done that kind of
thing.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> First of all, a few notes to myself. A poem is a narrative or an
> anything else of that nature it might have. I thought at first it could be a
> setting, but decided a setting would be an image-complex, so covered
> by the category of a poem's constituents I call "imagery" in my
> poetics. A narrative is the story it tells, if any; an argument its
> attempt to make some point, if any. Many poems tell a story to make
> some point. Most of the best lyric poems (which are, realy, the only
> poems I'm talking about) tell no story and make no significant point.
Question to all: do you know of or can you think of anything a lyric
poem might be other than (1) a narrative, (2) an argument (or
proposition, (3) some sort of sensory gestalt or (4) some combination
of the preceding?
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Melodation and imagery create a poem's tone which here is
1 unusually musical due to the repenemes, or repeated word-sounds and
words themselves
(e.g. the five instances of "to"/"too"), and euphony of vowels,
customarily defined as the
sounds of the long-o, long-u and the "ah" in words like "not."
2 languor due to the many soft consonants: m, f, w, sh, l, s; the
gentle rhythm, and
everything mentioned in 1.
3. sonnet-tone: love, elegance, ties to high literature that's been
around, balance, order,
rationality. All end-stopped lines, for instance, plus the
fasticiously-followed sonnet meter
and rhyme scheme.
4 serenity, at rest in a blissful summer day, at peace with Nature
(sun, blossoms, breezes);
eternally.
5. visceral happiness, most of the images being pleasurable, and the
perhaps not
pleasurable ones being extremely light, abstract--and contrasts almost
peripheral. Death is
a person but with no blood, the afterlife is not even night, just a
"shade." The "rough"
winds do little damage, they shake the buds, they don't destroy them,
or even injure them.
The sun is "too hot," but only "sometime"--which suggests that it is
more often
pleasurably warm. That the sun is golden and shines is the main image
of lines 5 & 6.
6. the intellectual happiness of being in a poem
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
all forms of comparison poems use. Yes, "figurative language" is a
good approximation of what I mean, as is "trope." But "equaphorical"
can be derived from "equaphor," as can "equaphoricality." The other
two aren't so easy to go into such words from. "Figurative" also
loses force by being a term for something other than equaphorical in
visual art. In any event, I hope soon to discuss the equaphoricality
of Sonnet 18.
I intend also to discuss its referentiality. By that I mean what Paul
takes to be all its has of value, what it does to connect to
externals.
Finally, there will be my attempt at a rough analysis of what I'm
tentatively calling Sonnet 18's ubergestalt. By this I mean what it
most centrally is and does, as a poem. I welcome any term that might
fit better than "ubergestalt." I use that because I mean something
more than the poem's "meaning" or what many would call its "main
meaning. As will be seen.
I'm now about to attempt a rough analysis of what I'm tentatively
calling Sonnet 18's ubergestalt. By this I mean what it most
centrally is and does, as a poem. I welcome any term that might fit
better than "ubergestalt." I use that because I mean something more
than the poem's "meaning" or what many would call its "main meaning.
As will be seen.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> One of my poetics neologies is "equaphor," a term intended to
> cover all forms of comparison poems use. Yes, "figurative
> language" is a good approximation of what I mean, as is "trope."
> But "equaphorical" can be derived from "equaphor," as can
> "equaphoricality." The other two aren't so easy to go into such
> words from. "Figurative" also loses force by being a term for
> something other than equaphorical in visual art. In any event, I
> hope soon to discuss the equaphoricality of Sonnet 18.
It would be nicer if you tried to write
in English. But we all know that that is
a futile request.
[..]
> I'm now about to attempt a rough analysis of what I'm tentatively
> calling Sonnet 18's ubergestalt. By this I mean what it most
> centrally is and does, as a poem. I welcome any term that might
> fit better than "ubergestalt." I use that because I mean
> something more than the poem's "meaning" or what many would call
> its "main meaning. As will be seen.
What special abilities or new techniques
do you bring to this kind of operation?
What were the qualities lacking among
the hundreds of thousands who attempted
it before you?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > One of my poetics neologies is "equaphor," a term intended to
> > cover all forms of comparison poems use. Yes, "figurative
> > language" is a good approximation of what I mean, as is "trope."
> > But "equaphorical" can be derived from "equaphor," as can
> > "equaphoricality." The other two aren't so easy to go into such
> > words from. "Figurative" also loses force by being a term for
> > something other than equaphorical in visual art. In any event, I
> > hope soon to discuss the equaphoricality of Sonnet 18.
>
> It would be nicer if you tried to write
> in English. But we all know that that is
> a futile request.
Rigidniks hate unusal language of any kind. I note that all you
present (implicitly) against my term is that it's not English. You
don't say why it is not useful. Guess what, Paul: there was no word
for what we now call a metaphor until someone invented it, and defined
it.
> > I'm now about to attempt a rough analysis of what I'm tentatively
> > calling Sonnet 18's ubergestalt. By this I mean what it most
> > centrally is and does, as a poem. I welcome any term that might
> > fit better than "ubergestalt." I use that because I mean
> > something more than the poem's "meaning" or what many would call
> > its "main meaning. As will be seen.
>
> What special abilities or new techniques
> do you bring to this kind of operation?
> What were the qualities lacking among
> the hundreds of thousands who attempted
> it before you?
>
> Paul.
What special abilities or new techniques did any of these others have,
Paul? I obviously believe that I will be able to say a few valuable
new things about this poem, and about poetry in general as I discuss
it. But it doesn't matter. I feel like presenting my view. Do you
believe I should be denied the right to?
Amusing, incidentally, that you want to know what I have that all the
others who have discussed poetry didn't have, you with no
consequential knowledge of any poet but Shakespeare, and a total
asbsence of aesthetic understanding of him, yet conceiving yourself to
be the first to figure out the True Meaning of his sonnets.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>>> One of my poetics neologies is "equaphor," a term intended to
>>> cover all forms of comparison poems use. Yes, "figurative
>>> language" is a good approximation of what I mean, as is "trope."
>>> But "equaphorical" can be derived from "equaphor," as can
>>> "equaphoricality." The other two aren't so easy to go into such
>>> words from. "Figurative" also loses force by being a term for
>>> something other than equaphorical in visual art. In any event, I
>>> hope soon to discuss the equaphoricality of Sonnet 18.
>>
>> It would be nicer if you tried to write
>> in English. But we all know that that is
>> a futile request.
>
> Rigidniks hate unusal language of any kind.
People who like meaning need it to be expressed
in a recognised language.
> I note that all you present (implicitly) against my term is that
> it's not English.
That it is not in any known language is a
fundamental criticism.
> You don't say why it is not useful.
It is not in any known language.
> Guess what, Paul: there was no word for what we now call a
> metaphor until someone invented it, and defined it.
It is most unlikely that it happened that way,
but even if it did, the point is that its use
has been worked out, established and justified
a million million times since.
>> What special abilities or new techniques
>> do you bring to this kind of operation?
>> What were the qualities lacking among
>> the hundreds of thousands who attempted
>> it before you?
>
> What special abilities or new techniques did any of these others
> have, Paul?
You believe that they did ok, and had a lot worth
saying. There have been tens (or hundreds) of
thousands of them. What new or extra do you bring
to the table?
> I obviously believe that I will be able to say a few valuable new
> things about this poem, and about poetry in general as I discuss
> it.
So tell us what KIND of new things.
> But it doesn't matter. I feel like presenting my view. Do
> you believe I should be denied the right to?
If it is be more than the perpetual hot air,
you should be able to present some kind of
rationale. Anyone claiming to talk about a
topic, which has been investigated in great
detail by "the best minds" over the past few
hundred years, should be able to say what is
new in their knowledge, skill or technique.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> One of my poetics neologies is "equaphor," a term intended to
> >>> cover all forms of comparison poems use. Yes, "figurative
> >>> language" is a good approximation of what I mean, as is "trope."
> >>> But "equaphorical" can be derived from "equaphor," as can
> >>> "equaphoricality." The other two aren't so easy to go into such
> >>> words from. "Figurative" also loses force by being a term for
> >>> something other than equaphorical in visual art. In any event, I
> >>> hope soon to discuss the equaphoricality of Sonnet 18.
>
> >> It would be nicer if you tried to write
> >> in English. But we all know that that is
> >> a futile request.
>
> > Rigidniks hate unusal language of any kind.
>
> People who like meaning need it to be expressed
> in a recognised language.
>
> > I note that all you present (implicitly) against my term is that
> > it's not English.
>
> That it is not in any known language is a
> fundamental criticism.
>
> > You don't say why it is not useful.
>
> It is not in any known language.
If that were so, no neologiy would be in any known language. This is
true only for rigidniks.
> > Guess what, Paul: there was no word for what we now call a
> > metaphor until someone invented it, and defined it.
>
> It is most unlikely that it happened that way,
> but even if it did, the point is that its use
> has been worked out, established and justified
> a million million times since.
How did it come about if not like that? And how can a neology be
instantly establish and justified a million million times?
> >> What special abilities or new techniques
> >> do you bring to this kind of operation?
> >> What were the qualities lacking among
> >> the hundreds of thousands who attempted
> >> it before you?
>
> > What special abilities or new techniques did any of these others
> > have, Paul?
>
> You believe that they did ok, and had a lot worth
> saying. There have been tens (or hundreds) of
> thousands of them. What new or extra do you bring
> to the table?
What special abilities or new techniques did any of these others have,
Paul?
> > I obviously believe that I will be able to say a few valuable new
> > things about this poem, and about poetry in general as I discuss
> > it.
>
> So tell us what KIND of new things.
I'm not concerned with indicating what new things I mention, only with
saying as much as I can about the poem.
> > But it doesn't matter. I feel like presenting my view. Do
> > you believe I should be denied the right to?
>
> If it is be more than the perpetual hot air,
> you should be able to present some kind of
> rationale. Anyone claiming to talk about a
> topic, which has been investigated in great
> detail by "the best minds" over the past few
> hundred years, should be able to say what is
> new in their knowledge, skill or technique.
That's not the way it works, Paul. One thing you're ignoring is that
the many people (not the "best minds") who have worked on poetry have
reached different conclusions, so there's constantly a need to
clarify one's own position, and challenge those in opposition to it.
There's also using old methods on aspects not previously treated--the
meaning of a particular word in a poem no one has commented on, for
instance. No previous treatment of a poem will likely be perfect, so
one adds to it. Etc.
Here, though, we are considering one poem. The question for you is
whether or not what I'm saying about it is valid, not whether or not
I'm saying something new about it. But all you do is call my thoughts
nonsense.
You continue, also, to dodge the question of just what qualifies you
to say anything about Shakespeare's poetry, considering that you can
name no other poet to whose works you have given serious attention.
Why should we read to your insanity other than because you say it's
valid?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>>> You don't say why it is not useful.
>>
>> It is not in any known language.
>
> If that were so, no neologiy would be in any known language.
> This is true only for rigidniks.
No one objects to new terms for new
things. New words for old things can
work too, and are often brought in for
reasons of fashion (e.g. 'cripple' went
out and 'spastic' came in, followed by
'handicapped' and so on). But
aimless neologisms of the kind you
like are utterly pointless.
>>> Guess what, Paul: there was no word for what we now call a
>>> metaphor until someone invented it, and defined it.
>> It is most unlikely that it happened that way,
>> but even if it did, the point is that its use
>> has been worked out, established and justified
>> a million million times since.
>
> How did it come about if not like that?
It's a word in English, known to have
come through French, Latin and Greek.
The Greeks would have got it off some
earlier civilisation, and those from an
even earlier one. I would date it to (very
roughly) around 100,000 years ago.
> And how can a neology be instantly establish and justified a
> million million times?
Where do you get 'instantly established'
from?
>>>> What special abilities or new techniques
>>>> do you bring to this kind of operation?
>>>> What were the qualities lacking among
>>>> the hundreds of thousands who attempted
>>>> it before you?
>>>
>>> What special abilities or new techniques did any of these others
>>> have, Paul?
>>
>> You believe that they did ok, and had a lot worth
>> saying. There have been tens (or hundreds) of
>> thousands of them. What new or extra do you bring
>> to the table?
>
> What special abilities or new techniques did any of these
> others have, Paul?
Perhaps they had none -- but some were
were the first to try, or to organise their
work in certain different ways. I'm sure
that most sought (or would have sought
if asked) to justify their work. Of course,
I might reject most of their claims -- but
the point is that discussion is entirely
reasonable.
>>> I obviously believe that I will be able to say a few valuable new
>>> things about this poem, and about poetry in general as I discuss
>>> it.
>>
>> So tell us what KIND of new things.
>
> I'm not concerned with indicating what new things I mention,
> only with saying as much as I can about the poem.
As everyone can see, you are bringing nothing
new at all to this 'work' -- apart from b/s.
>>> But it doesn't matter. I feel like presenting my view. Do
>>> you believe I should be denied the right to?
>>
>> If it is be more than the perpetual hot air,
>> you should be able to present some kind of
>> rationale. Anyone claiming to talk about a
>> topic, which has been investigated in great
>> detail by "the best minds" over the past few
>> hundred years, should be able to say what is
>> new in their knowledge, skill or technique.
>
> That's not the way it works, Paul. One thing you're
> ignoring is that the many people (not the "best minds") who
> have worked on poetry have reached different conclusions,
> so there's constantly a need to clarify one's own position,
> and challenge those in opposition to it. There's also using
> old methods on aspects not previously treated--the meaning
> of a particular word in a poem no one has commented on, for
> instance. No previous treatment of a poem will likely be
> perfect, so one adds to it. Etc.
You are intent only in piling bullshit on
top of more bullshit. You have, not for a
second, considered any part of what was
written before. For good reason. You know,
and I know, and everyone knows, that it is
all entirely worthless. But, for some strange
reason (utter foolishness being the most likely)
you think YOU can say something meaningful.
What a laugh!
> You continue, also, to dodge the question of just what
> qualifies you to say anything about Shakespeare's poetry,
> considering that you can name no other poet to whose works
> you have given serious attention. Why should we read to your
> insanity other than because you say it's valid?
I have answered this dozens of times. I am
the first to seriously consider the author
as a courtier-poet, an intimate friend of
Queen Elizabeth, producing most of these
Sonnets in the 1560s, 70s and early 80s.
There is nothing in the least obscure or
complicated in anything I say.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> You don't say why it is not useful.
>
> >> It is not in any known language.
>
> > If that were so, no neologiy would be in any known language.
> > This is true only for rigidniks.
>
> No one objects to new terms for new
> things. New words for old things can
> work too, and are often brought in for
> reasons of fashion (e.g. 'cripple' went
> out and 'spastic' came in, followed by
> 'handicapped' and so on). But
> aimless neologisms of the kind you
> like are utterly pointless.
Calling my terms "aimless" is aimless unless you say why.
> >>> Guess what, Paul: there was no word for what we now call a
> >>> metaphor until someone invented it, and defined it.
> >> It is most unlikely that it happened that way,
> >> but even if it did, the point is that its use
> >> has been worked out, established and justified
> >> a million million times since.
>
> > How did it come about if not like that?
>
> It's a word in English, known to have
> come through French, Latin and Greek.
> The Greeks would have got it off some
> earlier civilisation, and those from an
> even earlier one. I would date it to (very
> roughly) around 100,000 years ago.
Maybe, I wouldn't know. But how did it come into being unless someone
invented it?
> > And how can a neology be instantly establishED and justified a
> > million million times?
>
> Where do you get 'instantly established'
> from?
Stop and think, sometimes, Paul. You suggested that proper words were
those which had been established. I, in effect, said it wasn't fair
to condemn my neologies for not having been established since a
neology is by definition new
and therefore not capable of being established unless instantly.
>
>
> >>>> What special abilities or new techniques
> >>>> do you bring to this kind of operation?
> >>>> What were the qualities lacking among
> >>>> the hundreds of thousands who attempted
> >>>> it before you?
>
> >>> What special abilities or new techniques did any of these others
> >>> have, Paul?
>
> >> You believe that they did ok, and had a lot worth
> >> saying. There have been tens (or hundreds) of
> >> thousands of them. What new or extra do you bring
> >> to the table?
>
> > What special abilities or new techniques did any of these
> > others have, Paul?
>
> Perhaps they had none -- but some were
> were the first to try, or to organise their
> work in certain different ways. I'm sure
> that most sought (or would have sought
> if asked) to justify their work.
Probably--after they carried out their work.
> Of course, I might reject most of their claims -- but
> the point is that discussion is entirely
> reasonable.
>
> >>> I obviously believe that I will be able to say a few valuable new
> >>> things about this poem, and about poetry in general as I discuss
> >>> it.
>
> >> So tell us what KIND of new things.
Paul, I'd rather not think about that, I'd rather try to work out what
the sonnet means to me before trying to justify how I do that. But I
would say that what I most MAY be doing is providing a more holistic
description of the poem than anyone has before. Or coming at it from
more directions, integratedly, than any others have. I may be able to
be more precise about what I call the archetypal resonance of the poem
than any before me. I say that with some amusement because right now
I find myself unable to say anything intelligent about the poem's
archetypal resonance. I feel I will be able to do so, however. I may
find, my already have found, things Shakespeare did with the sounds of
words that others have overlooked, or not made as much of as they
deserve. Ditto, things Shakespeare did tonally.
A problem with this talk of new things is that I haven't read every
critic or even every reasonably intelligent critic, or every book on
criticism, so don't consider myself much of a judge on what's new,
what not.
> > I'm not concerned with indicating what new things I mention,
> > only with saying as much as I can about the poem.
>
> As everyone can see, you are bringing nothing
> new at all to this 'work' -- apart from b/s.
So be it. But--Paul--guess what? I have gotten paid for such b/s, I
have gotten it published in respectable publications and in reference
books. That's what distinguishes my b/s from yours.
Paul, I'm giving MY view of the poem. Not being an academic, I don't
have do waste time quoting others who said similar things. But most
of what I've said and will say is from them. As for saying something
meaningful, well this will test whether I can do that or not. Your
certainty that I haven't yet done so is irrelevant.
> > You continue, also, to dodge the question of just what
> > qualifies you to say anything about Shakespeare's poetry,
> > considering that you can name no other poet to whose works
> > you have given serious attention. Why should we read to your
> > insanity other than because you say it's valid?
>
> I have answered this dozens of times. I am
> the first to seriously consider the author
> as a courtier-poet, an intimate friend of
> Queen Elizabeth, producing most of these
> Sonnets in the 1560s, 70s and early 80s.
> There is nothing in the least obscure or
> complicated in anything I say.
Yes, but you know nothing about poetry, so what difference does it
make what you claim to be the first to do as a commentator on the
sonnets?
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>>>>> You don't say why it is not useful.
>>>> It is not in any known language.
>>>
>>> If that were so, no neologiy would be in any known language.
>>> This is true only for rigidniks.
>>
>> No one objects to new terms for new
>> things. New words for old things can
>> work too, and are often brought in for
>> reasons of fashion (e.g. 'cripple' went
>> out and 'spastic' came in, followed by
>> 'handicapped' and so on). But
>> aimless neologisms of the kind you
>> like are utterly pointless.
>
> Calling my terms "aimless" is aimless unless you say why.
You invent neologisms on the fly, as
names for the vaguest of impressions
that pass through your brain. Take
some drugs, hallucinate a bit, and
you'd come up with a lot more. They
have no meaning to anyone else, and
no value to anyone.
>>>>> Guess what, Paul: there was no word for what we now call a
>>>>> metaphor until someone invented it, and defined it.
>>>>
>>>> It is most unlikely that it happened that way,
>>>> but even if it did, the point is that its use
>>>> has been worked out, established and justified
>>>> a million million times since.
>>>
>>> How did it come about if not like that?
>>
>> It's a word in English, known to have
>> come through French, Latin and Greek.
>> The Greeks would have got it off some
>> earlier civilisation, and those from an
>> even earlier one. I would date it to (very
>> roughly) around 100,000 years ago.
>
> Maybe, I wouldn't know. But how did it come into being unless
> someone invented it?
The real point about 'metaphor' is that it
is a name for a real thing -- a common figure
of speech. People were producing (and using)
metaphors for thousands of years before
someone thought of giving the process a name.
There are (I am sure) plenty of languages
which don't have an equivalent name -- but a
more general one, for (say) 'figure of speech'.
There may well be some languages which have
words that distinguish between different sorts
of metaphors.
>>> And how can a neology be instantly establishED and justified a
>>> million million times?
>>
>> Where do you get 'instantly established'
>> from?
>
> Stop and think, sometimes, Paul. You suggested that proper
> words were those which had been established. I, in effect, said
> it wasn't fair to condemn my neologies for not having been
> established since a neology is by definition new and therefore
> not capable of being established unless instantly.
OK -- but it would help if you used common
words for common things. If you had written
'neologisms' I would have picked up your trick.
I object -- most strongly -- to the invention
of new words without the most compelling of
reasons (e.g. new things).
[..]
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> OK -- but it would help if you used common
> words for common things. If you had written
> 'neologisms' I would have picked up your trick.
Right, "neology" is opaque. Actually, the problem is that you have no
flexibility, Paul.
> I object -- most strongly -- to the invention
> of new words without the most compelling of
> reasons (e.g. new things).
And you're the infallible authority on what's new, what isn't.
--Bob G.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
a comment on what Paul said there that I don't want to reply to there
because I've left the thread.
When I asked who had done a serious discussion of Sonnet 18 besides
Booth and Vendler, I mean from their point of view, Paul, not yours.
I meant said more about them than a passing comment. I would agree
with you that many have done little more than explications, telling us
what they think the sonnet says. But that's about all you're doing.
I am trying to say what it does and is, as well. I think what they've
done is of value, though far from earth-shaking. This Ledger, for
instance, explains "May" nicely.
I also have exciting news about my comentary on the sonnet. I've
decided that a lyric poem can be one of three things, or a combination
of two or more of them: narrative, argument and gestalt. I'm close to
repeating what I said before on this thread. Previously, I felt a
lyric poem could only be a narrative and/or an argument. I toyed with
the idea of its also possibly being a setting, then decided its
setting was covered by its imagery. Now, mainly because I think
Sonnet 18 not a narrative, and only rather weakly an argument, and
want a term for what it seems most to be to me, I picked
"gestalt" (dropping "ubergestalt" for consideration as one of my
poetics terms in the process).
By a poem as a gestalt, I mean a meld of its tone, imagery, melodation
(i.e., sound effects) and form. Also, its archetypal resonance.
Probably other things that my discussion of the poem will run into.
Final note to Paul. You should be aware that I am learning about
things that seem to me to support my theory of psychology probably as
rapidly as you think you're learning things that support your theory
of the sonnets' meaning. Such "support" is meaningless, and will
remain so until someone besides me agrees with me that it supports my
theory. Unlike you, I have no competitors finding out things that
they think support a theory in opposition to mine. You have many--
like Hank W. and Peter F.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
now.) It is a verbal representation of a state of final tranquility.
(Or, in terms of my poetics, it is a gestalt for Final Tranquility.)
Have I belittled it in calling it that? Is this a trivial thing to
be? Not as far as I'm concerned. I believe one of our more prominent
instinctive (or archetypal) drives is towardf the achievement of
serenity, toward being at peace with all of existence, being in an
eternal summer day.
I found this poem difficult to solve. Something about the poem
convinced me it was major, but I didn't know what. I kept looking for
the archetypal resonance I feel a major poem should have and failed to
find it. True, the poem is about the creation of something eternal
(life is short, art eternal, or the opposition of the ephemeral with
the lasting, a theme certainly of archetypal vigor), but the theme was
considerably weakened by coming into the poem late, after a different
theme, the superiority of some unnamed person in beauty and
disposition to a summer's day. That theme suffered by being general:
the person hardly exists--we can't even be sure of his or her gender,
although the "more lovely" says "female," to me. The summer's day is
not very detailed, either. What buds are "darling," for instance? As
I will eventually show, the gestalt I finally decided the poem to be
is unified and includes the whole of it.
--Bob G.
Paul Crowley
> When I asked who had done a serious discussion of Sonnet 18
> besides Booth and Vendler, I mean from their point of view,
> Paul, not yours.
I doubt if any of the commentators would
claim to have said anything of value on
Sonnet 18.
[..]
> This Ledger, for instance, explains "May" nicely.
No, he does not. He states (and thanks for not
telling us) that " . . May was a summer month
in Shakespeare's time, because the calendar in
use lagged behind the true sidereal calendar by
at least a fortnight "
That is NOT true. The lag was 10 days, and that
certainly did not make May a summer month. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar
In any case, the extra ten days would make
'rough windes' even less applicable. To pretend
to 'explain' all (or any of) this in meteorological
terms is pure nonsense.
[..]
> Final note to Paul. You should be aware that I am learning
> about things that seem to me to support my theory of psychology
> probably as rapidly as you think you're learning things that
> support your theory of the sonnets' meaning. Such "support" is
> meaningless, and will remain so until someone besides me agrees
> with me that it supports my theory.
Why is that relevant? It is an objective fact
that, in my earlier readings of this sonnet, I had
not focussed on 'sometime', assuming that it was
the same as 'sometimes'. It was only on seeing
that Booth explicitly makes that identification
and (knowing that all such an 'authority' says
must almost necessarily be wrong) that I looked
into the matter, and found that a closer reading
supports my case. All of that is objective and
I do not require someone like (say) Groves to
agree with me. In fact, I would be horrified if
he (or any such person) did.
> Unlike you, I have no competitors finding out things that they
> think support a theory in opposition to mine. You have many--
> like Hank W. and Peter F.
What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> > When I asked who had done a serious discussion of Sonnet 18
> > besides Booth and Vendler, I mean from their point of view,
> > Paul, not yours.
>
> I doubt if any of the commentators would
> claim to have said anything of value on
> Sonnet 18.
>
> [..]
>
> > This Ledger, for instance, explains "May" nicely.
>
> No, he does not. He states (and thanks for not
> telling us) that " . . May was a summer month
> in Shakespeare's time, because the calendar in
> use lagged behind the true sidereal calendar by
> at least a fortnight "
>
> That is NOT true. The lag was 10 days, and that
>
> In any case, the extra ten days would make
> 'rough windes' even less applicable. To pretend
> to 'explain' all (or any of) this in meteorological
> terms is pure nonsense.
>
> [..]
>
> > Final note to Paul. You should be aware that I am learning
> > about things that seem to me to support my theory of psychology
> > probably as rapidly as you think you're learning things that
> > support your theory of the sonnets' meaning. Such "support" is
> > meaningless, and will remain so until someone besides me agrees
> > with me that it supports my theory.
>
> Why is that relevant? It is an objective fact
> that, in my earlier readings of this sonnet, I had
> not focussed on 'sometime', assuming that it was
> the same as 'sometimes'. It was only on seeing
> that Booth explicitly makes that identification
> and (knowing that all such an 'authority' says
> must almost necessarily be wrong) that I looked
> into the matter, and found that a closer reading
> supports my case. All of that is objective and
> I do not require someone like (say) Groves to
> agree with me. In fact, I would be horrified if
> he (or any such person) did.
>
something is "objectively" true makes it objectively true even no one
else agrees with you that it's objectively true?
> > Unlike you, I have no competitors finding out things that they
> > think support a theory in opposition to mine. You have many--
> > like Hank W. and Peter F.
>
> What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
>
> Paul.
What the sonnets are objectively about.
--Bob
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
May was a summer month for Elizabethans. The different calendar would
make it close enough to count as summer. More important, Shakespeare
would not mess up so completely just to get a rhyme (as I accused him
of doing)--or to get your alleged pun. If he needed the word, "May,"
and May or the final week or so of May wasn't considered summer, he
would have been clever enough to work it in somehow. "Rough winds do
shake the blossoms born in May," for instance. Not nearly as good a
line but passable, and he could have done something like it only
better.
Also, if none of the commentators on Sonnet 18 thought they said
anythign of value about it, why did they have their comments on it
published?
--Bob G.
onec...@comcast.net
After reading for and aft, I am, as usual aghast at such
incomprehension, especially sexual implicatations which were not
clearly of the time, nor evident in the sonnet - I merely add the note
that the term is indeed apt, but not original to Shakespeare.
SUMMER'S DAY: As nice a person as one shall see on a summer's day, i.
e. as one could see. This vernacular phrase is not unusual in early
writers. "They say hee is as goodly a youth as one shall see in a
summer's day." Lilly's Mother Bombie, ed 1632 sig Z. x.
The reference is obviously in Mid Sum. Night's dream i. 2, and also
henry V ii 6 iv 8. The phrase also occurs in later works: "As fine a
fat thriving chilkd as you shall see in a summer's day," Joesph
Andrews, b. iv. c. 15.
Associated words seem to be: SUMMERLINGS, and SUMMER-TOY [freckled!]
One might look to SUMNI [A.Sax]
To Westmystre he let sumni the bischopes of his londe,
And clerkes that grettest were ek and he3ist, ich understonde.
// Life of Thomas Beket, p. 19.
That being the sense of something drawn out of, or summoned.
Phil Innes
> > >2. Thou art more louely and more temperate:
> > >3. Rough windes do shake the darling buds of Maie,
> > >4. And Sommers lease hath all too short a date:
> > >5. Sometime too hot the eye of heauen shines,
> > >6. And often is his gold complexion dimm'd,
> > >7. And euery faire from faire some-time declines,
> > >8. By chance, or natures changing course vntrim'd:
> > >9. But thy eternall Sommer shall not fade,
> > >10. Nor loose possession of that faire thou ow'st,
> > >11. Nor shall death brag thou wandr'st in his shade,
> > >12. When in eternall lines to time thou grow'st,
> > >13. So long as men can breath or eyes can see,
> > >14. So long liues this, and this giues life to thee,
>
> Whew, not much to work with. The poet is comparing someone to summer
> who is superior to it in beauty and temperament. Moreover, this
> person will not fade like summer but live eternally in this poem that
> the person has inspired. A paraphrase (not particularly well
> expressed, so I'll work on it). But there is much more to the poem
> than that, which I will in due course get to. Before I do, I should
> point out that I take all the words in the poem to be what it most
> makes sense for them to be, regardless of their original spelling.
> Ergo, "loose" for me is "lose."
>
> I plan (at the moment) to just make notes on the poem for a few posts,
> then try for a near-final draft of my pluraphrase (by which I mean my
> understanding of everything the poem says and is).
>
> --Bob G.
Paul Crowley
>>> Final note to Paul. You should be aware that I am learning
>>> about things that seem to me to support my theory of psychology
Even the most marginal awareness of the amount
of nonsense on Pssycholokogy spewed out in
books (including textbooks), in journals, and
all over the place over the past 200 or so
years, would guarantee a disbelief in any such
pronouncement.
>>> probably as rapidly as you think you're learning things that
>>> support your theory of the sonnets' meaning.
The difference is that I work line-by-
line and word-by-word. Each of the
propositions I put forward is disputable,
and readily disprovable.
According to you (and Strats and quasi-Strats
generally) Mary QS is no more present in
Sonnet 18 than are the Queen of Sheba and
Jackie Kennedy. So it should be a trivial
exercise to show the inapplicability of my
reading. That must be why it is done so
often.
>>> Such "support" is
>>> meaningless, and will remain so until someone besides me agrees
>>> with me that it supports my theory.
>>
>> Why is that relevant? It is an objective fact
>> that, in my earlier readings of this sonnet, I had
>> not focussed on 'sometime', assuming that it was
>> the same as 'sometimes'. It was only on seeing
>> that Booth explicitly makes that identification
>> and (knowing that all such an 'authority' says
>> must almost necessarily be wrong) that I looked
>> into the matter, and found that a closer reading
>> supports my case. All of that is objective and
>> I do not require someone like (say) Groves to
>> agree with me. In fact, I would be horrified if
>> he (or any such person) did.
>>
> You really fail to see that for your opinion that what you think
> about something is "objectively" true makes it objectively true
> even no one else agrees with you that it's objectively true?
Not a problem at all. Do you think that Einstein
was worried in 1904 about the truth of his ideas
when, while working as a low-grade clerk in a
Patent office, he wrote those four earth-
shattering papers?
If he tried to discuss his ideas with (say) local
physics teachers, what do you think they'd have
said?
>>> Unlike you, I have no competitors finding out things that they
>>> think support a theory in opposition to mine. You have many--
>>> like Hank W. and Peter F.
>>
>> What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
>
> What the sonnets are objectively about.
Thanks for that long list and that huge amount
of detail. You really should not have gone to
so much trouble.
Paul.
Peter Farey
Bob Grumman wrote:
>
> Paul Crowley wrote:
> >
> > Bob Grumman wrote:
> > >
> > > Unlike you, I have no competitors finding out things that they
> > > think support a theory in opposition to mine. You have many--
> > > like Hank W. and Peter F.
> >
> > What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
> >
> > Paul.
>
> What the sonnets are objectively about.
One example would be my showing how Sonnet 125, being saturated
with references to Holy Communion, tells us (lines 3 & 4) that
the poet does not believe in a life eternal. Of major biographical
interest, I would have thought.
Peter F.
<pet...@rey.prestel.co.uk>
<http://www2.prestel.co.uk/rey/index.htm>
Paul Crowley
>> > What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
> One example would be my showing how Sonnet 125, being
> saturated with references to Holy Communion,
This is an ancient and thoroughly explored
observation. See Gerard Ledger's site
http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/125comm.htm
" . . . Critics have also picked out two closely related
texts which seem to have a bearing on this sonnet. Part of
the first scene of Othello contains many verbal echoes. The
following words and phrases are relevant: second, forms and
visages of duty, thrive, obsequious, outward, extern. The
full extract is printed at the end of the page. The second
text is the Communion Service from The Book of Common
Prayer, (1559) of which the portions significant in this
context are printed below. (A link is also given to the
complete text). . . . "
> tells us (lines 3 & 4) that the poet does not believe in a
> life eternal. Of major biographical interest, I would have
> thought.
That the poet had a sceptical attitude in
religious matters is also an ancient observation.
But it would be hard to extract any categorical
statement of belief from this Sonnet or from
any other part of the canon.
However, more relevant to his biography is his
deep familiarity with the Old Religion and his
liking for its rituals, his sympathy with its
priests, and his detestation of Puritan attitudes
and preachers.
There is only one candidate for the authorship
who spent his early years within the Catholic
Church, and who experienced its rituals.
Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>>> 1. Shall I compare thee to a Summers day?
>
> After reading for and aft, I am, as usual aghast at such
> incomprehension, especially sexual implicatations which were
> not clearly of the time,
State which.
> nor evident in the sonnet
State which.
> - I merely add the note that the term is indeed apt, but not
> original to Shakespeare.
State when a person was compared to
a summer's day before Sonnet 18.
> SUMMER'S DAY: As nice a person as one shall see on a summer's
> day, i. e. as one could see. This vernacular phrase is not
> unusual in early writers. "They say hee is as goodly a youth
> as one shall see in a summer's day." Lilly's Mother Bombie,
> ed 1632 sig Z. x.
That's 1632, not particularly relevant,
and even possibly derived from a reading
of Sonnet 18.
> The reference is obviously in Mid Sum. Night's dream i. 2,
> and also henry V ii 6 iv 8. The phrase also occurs in later
> works: "As fine a fat thriving chilkd as you shall see in a
> summer's day," Joesph Andrews, b. iv. c. 15.
What you might see on a summer's day is
very different from the day itself.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
> bobgrum...@nut-n-but.net wrote:
> >>> Final note to Paul. You should be aware that I am learning
> >>> about things that seem to me to support my theory of psychology
>
> Even the most marginal awareness of the amount
> of nonsense on Pssycholokogy spewed out in
> books (including textbooks), in journals, and
> all over the place over the past 200 or so
> years, would guarantee a disbelief in any such
> pronouncement.
Right. My belief that I learn things every day that verify my theory
is erroneous. But, Paul, my point is that everyone who has an
original understanding of some aspect of reality learns things daily
that he THINKS verify his theory, so your confidence that what your
learn that verifies your theory indead verifies it is suspect. It
reduces to you are right because you say you are, and that's not
enough.
> >>> probably as rapidly as you think you're learning things that
> >>> support your theory of the sonnets' meaning.
>
> The difference is that I work line-by-
> line and word-by-word. Each of the
> propositions I put forward is disputable,
> and readily disprovable.
I work datum by datum. My propositions are disputable, as well--
although only theoretically disputable right now because our
technology isn't capable of the kind of neurophysiological
investigations required to prove or disprove most of my contentions.
> According to you (and Strats and quasi-Strats
> generally) Mary QS is no more present in
> Sonnet 18 than are the Queen of Sheba and
> Jackie Kennedy. So it should be a trivial
> exercise to show the inapplicability of my
> reading. That must be why it is done so
> often.
I think I've heard that before, Paul. But it reduces to no one has
done this because you say no one has done it. You're right because
you say you're right. But there's more to it than that, Paul.
> >>> Such "support" is
> >>> meaningless, and will remain so until someone besides me agrees
> >>> with me that it supports my theory.
>
> >> Why is that relevant? It is an objective fact
> >> that, in my earlier readings of this sonnet, I had
> >> not focussed on 'sometime', assuming that it was
> >> the same as 'sometimes'. It was only on seeing
> >> that Booth explicitly makes that identification
> >> and (knowing that all such an 'authority' says
> >> must almost necessarily be wrong) that I looked
> >> into the matter, and found that a closer reading
> >> supports my case. All of that is objective and
> >> I do not require someone like (say) Groves to
> >> agree with me. In fact, I would be horrified if
> >> he (or any such person) did.
>
> > You really fail to see that for your opinion that what you think
> > about something is "objectively" true makes it objectively true
> > even no one else agrees with you that it's objectively true?
>
> Not a problem at all. Do you think that Einstein
> was worried in 1904 about the truth of his ideas
> when, while working as a low-grade clerk in a
> Patent office, he wrote those four earth-
> shattering papers?
I wouldn't know. I suspect he was like I am, fairly confident but not
absolutely certain, being sane. I think Velikovsky was much more
certain about the truth of his ideas. How can you tell whether you
are an Einstein or a Velikovsky? Or which I am? I can't tell I'm not
a Velikovsky because no one has read through my entire theory and
critiqued it. If they had, I'm sure most or all of them would find it
worthless. They would not convince me it was, but I would surely not
claim no one had advanced any arguments against my theory.
> If he tried to discuss his ideas with (say) local
> physics teachers, what do you think they'd have
> said?
Paul, your ideas are based on Ogburn, and Ogburn has been critiqued by
the top authorities in Shakespeare studies. When Einstein's theories
were critiqued by the top authorities in his field, they were soon
accepted. As for your interpretations of the sonnets, several persons
who are either credentialed authorities in English Literature or a
near-equivalent (like I am since I've published literary criticism and
analysis in certified publications) have found them to be worthless.
After ten years or more.
> >>> Unlike you, I have no competitors finding out things that they
> >>> think support a theory in opposition to mine. You have many--
> >>> like Hank W. and Peter F.
>
> >> What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
>
> > What the sonnets are objectively about.
>
> Thanks for that long list and that huge amount
> of detail. You really should not have gone to
> so much trouble.
You implied they have found out nothing. I aver that they have found
out something, which proves you wrong, They have adduced many details
about the sonnets based on their understanding of who wrote them. Why
should I who think they're both nuts list what they've "found out?"
--Bob G.
> Paul.
Paul Crowley
>>>>> Final note to Paul. You should be aware that I am learning
>>>>> about things that seem to me to support my theory of psychology
>>
>> Even the most marginal awareness of the amount
>> of nonsense on Pssycholokogy spewed out in
>> books (including textbooks), in journals, and
>> all over the place over the past 200 or so
>> years, would guarantee a disbelief in any such
>> pronouncement.
>
> Right. My belief that I learn things every day that verify my
> theory is erroneous. But, Paul, my point is that everyone who
> has an original understanding of some aspect of reality learns
> things daily that he THINKS verify his theory, so your confidence
> that what your learn that verifies your theory indead verifies it
> is suspect. It reduces to you are right because you say you are,
> and that's not enough.
The difference is that I post them here, and
you can criticise them in detail. You can
deny that 'sometime' is any different from
'sometimes' and say the OED is wrong. You
can claim that Mary QS could not have been
the 'Queen of Hearts' -- showing how she did
not fit, or that her husband did not fit the
'King of Hearts' or how Riccio did not fit
the 'Knave'. Or you could dispute the
evidence that Mary QS baked tarts.
Somehow you never do any of that -- or
anything like that.
> I work datum by datum.
Luckily for us, you never post any of this 'datum'.
> My propositions are disputable, as well--
> although only theoretically disputable right now because our
> technology isn't capable of the kind of neurophysiological
> investigations required to prove or disprove most of my
> contentions.
Shame.
>> According to you (and Strats and quasi-Strats
>> generally) Mary QS is no more present in
>> Sonnet 18 than are the Queen of Sheba and
>> Jackie Kennedy. So it should be a trivial
>> exercise to show the inapplicability of my
>> reading. That must be why it is done so
>> often.
>
> I think I've heard that before, Paul. But it reduces to no one
> has done this because you say no one has done it.
Why not do it now? Show how Sonnet 18 is
really about the assassination of JFK? Or
about 9/11? Or about the abduction of
Helen of Troy?
>> Not a problem at all. Do you think that Einstein
>> was worried in 1904 about the truth of his ideas
>> when, while working as a low-grade clerk in a
>> Patent office, he wrote those four earth-
>> shattering papers?
>
> I wouldn't know. I suspect he was like I am, fairly confident
> but not absolutely certain, being sane. I think Velikovsky was
> much more certain about the truth of his ideas. How can you tell
> whether you are an Einstein or a Velikovsky?
I know nothing of Velikovsky, but it is not hard
to see when your ideas are confirmed or disproved
by a large number of objective facts.
>> If he tried to discuss his ideas with (say) local
>> physics teachers, what do you think they'd have
>> said?
>
> Paul, your ideas are based on Ogburn
Not really. I rarely, if ever, quote him.
He missed a lot -- such as size of the joke
involved in the name "Will Shake-speare";
he never worked out how it must have been
created and maintained.
> and Ogburn has been
> critiqued by the top authorities in Shakespeare studies.
Oh yeah? Is that supposed to be a serious
objection?
> When Einstein's theories were critiqued by the top authorities in
> his field, they were soon accepted.
Not really. But he was very lucky in being able
to mount experiments, which happily worked.
> As for your interpretations of the sonnets, several persons who
> are either credentialed authorities in English Literature or a
> near-equivalent (like I am since I've published literary
> criticism and analysis in certified publications) have found them
> to be worthless. After ten years or more.
Much less. But who would expect otherwise?
>>>> What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
>>>
>>> What the sonnets are objectively about.
>>
>> Thanks for that long list and that huge amount
>> of detail. You really should not have gone to
>> so much trouble.
>
> You implied they have found out nothing. I aver that they have
> found out something, which proves you wrong,
No. You have to state it (for a start).
> They have adduced many details about the sonnets based on their
> understanding of who wrote them.
Such as?
> Why should I who think they're
> both nuts list what they've "found out?"
Because both you and I know that it's nothing
and that you are bull-shitting.
Paul.
bobgr...@nut-n-but.net
Who will judge whether I've succeeded or not?
> >> Not a problem at all. Do you think that Einstein
> >> was worried in 1904 about the truth of his ideas
> >> when, while working as a low-grade clerk in a
> >> Patent office, he wrote those four earth-
> >> shattering papers?
>
> > I wouldn't know. I suspect he was like I am, fairly confident
> > but not absolutely certain, being sane. I think Velikovsky was
> > much more certain about the truth of his ideas. How can you tell
> > whether you are an Einstein or a Velikovsky?
>
> I know nothing of Velikovsky, but it is not hard
> to see when your ideas are confirmed or disproved
> by a large number of objective facts.
How about van Daniken? His books are FULL of objective facts he says
confirm his theory that aliens began our civilization for us. Then
there's Peter's inscription "solution." He's sure that dozens of
objective facts like the size of the lettering confirm his theory. It
is NOT easy to see when your ideas are confirmed or disproved by a
large number of objective facts; what is easy to do is to delude
yourself that that is the case. You accept that that can happen to
others but not to you, and are unwilling to suggest any test of your
outlook except your subjective belief in it. This is a form of
insanity.
> >> If he tried to discuss his ideas with (say) local
> >> physics teachers, what do you think they'd have
> >> said?
>
> > Paul, your ideas are based on Ogburn
>
> Not really. I rarely, if ever, quote him.
> He missed a lot -- such as size of the joke
> involved in the name "Will Shake-speare";
> he never worked out how it must have been
> created and maintained.
Your theory that Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare. If that is
not true, your theory of the sonnets doesn't work.
> > and Ogburn has been
> > critiqued by the top authorities in Shakespeare studies.
>
> Oh yeah? Is that supposed to be a serious
> objection?
You can't keep arguments straight, can you. The fact that Ogburn has
been critiqued by top authorities means you have, too, which you
deinied you had.
> > When Einstein's theories were critiqued by the top authorities in
> > his field, they were soon accepted.
>
> Not really. But he was very lucky in being able
> to mount experiments, which happily worked.
His ideas were soon accepted, yours have not been.
> > As for your interpretations of the sonnets, several persons who
> > are either credentialed authorities in English Literature or a
> > near-equivalent (like I am since I've published literary
> > criticism and analysis in certified publications) have found them
> > to be worthless. After ten years or more.
>
> Much less. But who would expect otherwise?
That leaves you the problem of unfalsifiability. If there's no way to
find your theories to be deluded, and there isn't, because only you
are allowed to judge attempted arguments against it, your theory is
unfalsifiable and of no value.
> >>>> What has Hank or Peter ever found out?
>
> >>> What the sonnets are objectively about.
>
> >> Thanks for that long list and that huge amount
> >> of detail. You really should not have gone to
> >> so much trouble.
>
> > You implied they have found out nothing. I aver that they have
> > found out something, which proves you wrong,
>
> No. You have to state it (for a start).
>
> > They have adduced many details about the sonnets based on their
> > understanding of who wrote them.
>
> Such as?
>
> > Why should I who think they're
> > both nuts list what they've "found out?"
>
> Because both you and I know that it's nothing
> and that you are bull-shitting.
>
> Paul.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Fine, Whitmore wrote an entire book interpretting the sonnets but
found out nothing, because no in the work is capable of finding out
anything about the sonnets but Paul Crowley, which we know for a fact
because he has said it is so.
--Bob
Paul Crowley
>>>> According to you (and Strats and quasi-Strats
>>>> generally) Mary QS is no more present in
>>>> Sonnet 18 than are the Queen of Sheba and
>>>> Jackie Kennedy. So it should be a trivial
>>>> exercise to show the inapplicability of my
>>>> reading. That must be why it is done so
>>>> often.
>>>
>>> I think I've heard that before, Paul. But it reduces to no one
>>> has done this because you say no one has done it.
>>
>> Why not do it now? Show how Sonnet 18 is
>> really about the assassination of JFK? Or
>> about 9/11? Or about the abduction of
>> Helen of Troy?
>
> Who will judge whether I've succeeded or not?
The results will be obvious to all -- including
you. It can't be done, which is why no one
tries to do it. Imagine setting out TWO
interpretations of Sonnet 18: once as being
about the assassination of JFK, and once when
you show how it applies to 9/11. Yet THAT is
what you (and Strats generally) claim about
my reading. You say almost anyone could apply
it to almost any event _just_as_well_.
> How about van Daniken? His books are FULL of objective facts he
> says confirm his theory that aliens began our civilization
I have read none of them. But those facts
(if they exist) can probably be read easily
as showing other things.
> Then there's Peter's inscription "solution." He's sure that
> dozens of objective facts like the size of the lettering confirm
> his theory.
No. They make up his theory.
> It is NOT easy to see when your ideas are confirmed
> or disproved by a large number of objective facts;
Sometimes it is, often it isn't. It depends
largely on the nature of the proposal. Peter's
is fearfully complex (and avoids every
straightforward question -- such as why the
heck should anyone want to do such a thing).
Mine is simple and very straightforward.
> what is easy
> to do is to delude yourself that that is the case. You accept
> that that can happen to others but not to you, and are unwilling
> to suggest any test of your outlook except your subjective belief
> in it. This is a form of insanity.
Sheer nonsense. I put forward simple
objective tests all the time. What do
you think we've been talking about?
Can you apply Sonnet 18 to 9/11? Do
it one-quarter as well as mine (simply
in terms of the numbers of words and
phrases explained), and I've lost my
argument. Or explain how someone else
is a better fit for the 'Queen of Hearts'
than Mary QS.
>> Not really. I rarely, if ever, quote him.
>> He missed a lot -- such as size of the joke
>> involved in the name "Will Shake-speare";
>> he never worked out how it must have been
>> created and maintained.
>
> Your theory that Oxford wrote the works of Shakespeare. If
> that is not true, your theory of the sonnets doesn't work.
And so?
>>> and Ogburn has been
>>> critiqued by the top authorities in Shakespeare studies.
>>
>> Oh yeah? Is that supposed to be a serious
>> objection?
>
> You can't keep arguments straight, can you. The fact that
> Ogburn has been critiqued by top authorities means you have,
> too, which you deinied you had.
Ridiculous. In any case, the 'critiques' of
Ogburn by the 'top authorities' are fairly
conspicuous by their absence -- or, at least,
their rarity.
>>> As for your interpretations of the sonnets, several persons who
>>> are either credentialed authorities in English Literature or a
>>> near-equivalent (like I am since I've published literary
>>> criticism and analysis in certified publications) have found them
>>> to be worthless. After ten years or more.
>>
>> Much less. But who would expect otherwise?
>
> That leaves you the problem of unfalsifiability. If there's
> no way to find your theories to be deluded, and there isn't,
> because only you are allowed to judge attempted arguments
> against it, your theory is unfalsifiable and of no value.
Sheer nonsense. If this thesis applied generally,
we'd still be in the Stone Age. Wheels would not
have been invented. The "credentialed authorities"
would have thought them unnecessary. We'd certainly
not have accepted Copernicus.
>> Because both you and I know that it's nothing
>> and that you are bull-shitting.
>
> Fine, Whitmore wrote an entire book interpretting the sonnets but
> found out nothing, because no in the work is capable of finding
> out anything about the sonnets
Whittemore is a Prince-Tudor theorist, with
all manner of crazy ideas. He set out to
prove them sonnet-by-sonnet. A ghastly
enterprise with a ghastly result -- one that
was entirely predictable from the start.
> but Paul Crowley,
I got the ideas right first. That's all.
> which we know for a fact because he has said it is so
You (should) know it because you can never
contradict any detail. Just apply Sonnet 18
to the election of Barack Obama -- OR show
where my reading is as bad.
Paul.