Talk:Sonnet 18

Neutrality

I'm in awe over the strong assertion this article makes that the addressee of this poem is the Earl, without any references. This needs to be balanced more, and/or referenced. Also, the language could be more neutral ("disregarding"). It makes anyone who reads the poem differently sound like an idiot, when in fact many many people read it the other way. While this may not be the right way to interpret it historically, a formalist or a reader-response criticism can easily read it this way and not be wrong. Wrad 22:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree

I'm in the midst of a heavy copy-edit of this article, and the Earl-reference is already gone. I'm leaving the NPOV-fix until last if you'd like to have a go. Jlhughes 20:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"carries the meaning of a Petrarchan Sonnet"

You said in a comment that this confused you. I can see that it needs more explanation. How can I make it clearer? (I restored the line and ref because the ref is used later in the article, but I kept your comment.) Wrad 22:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I could say it has many similarities in subject matter and use of metaphor to a Petrarchan sonnet, although in form it is a Shakespearean sonnet. Wrad 22:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article

This article is well written and meets all of the GA criteria. I thought the lead section was a particularly good summary. regards, Johnfos 10:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Capitalism

I think that explaining Shakespeare's references to money in terms of capitalism is problematic. Firstly, the word capitalism may not be the best term for 16th century economy: the word Mercantilism might be more appropriate, and money was clearly important in pre-capitalist systems as well, including Feudalism. Secondly, the sentence sounds to me as if someone is trying to impose some political agenda onto Shakespeare - and a reference to a published article (out of the millions of articles that have been published about Shakespeare) doesn't really justify this. --RichardVeryard (talk) 14:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed it to "budding capitalistic" instead of just capitalistic, since that's what the article says. You're right, capitalism didn't become dominant until about a century later. As for the POV stuff, I disagree. The article referenced isn't at all extreme, and the fact is, Shakespeare did live in a budding capitalistic society, and used terms and analogies from that society in his poems. To change the language away from the reference would be OR. This isn't just a published article, it's a peer-reviewed article, which means it has been reviewed by peers for POV and other things. It isn't extreme in any way. Lastly, although there are millions of articles about Shakespeare, there aren't many about Sonnet 18, and this was one of the best I could find. If you can find better, be my guest. Wrad (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Audio file

Is it possible to obtain a more pleasant reading of this sonnet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.245.147.196 (talk) 01:16, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I recorded that one myself with my cheap microphone in my cheap apartment. If you have better gear, by my guest. Wrad (talk) 02:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the anon is criticising the quality of the recording. My guess is that they're commenting on how utterly lifeless you made one of the most wonderful pieces of English literature sound! I have re-recorded it myself, and I will upload it now. – PeeJay 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but it was better than nothing. If nothing else, at least I drove you to make a better copy. Are you willing to be on call for future recordings of sonnets? Wrad (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I sounded a bit callous with my previous comment. I just read it back to myself and I realised how much of an arse I sounded. Anyway, I would be willing to record readings of other sonnets in the future, if I can figure out how to increase the volume of my recordings using Audacity. – PeeJay 17:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do that. Maybe just send the file to me? I used audacity for my copy :) Wrad (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't actually save the file as an AUえーゆーP file, so I might have to re-record it. However, if that's not necessary, I uploaded the OGG file here as Sonnet18.ogg. – PeeJay 18:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That should work fine. Wrad (talk) 19:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If I were you, I might run through the sonnets here and make recordings for those whose articles are a little more developed. We might as well do it in one big push. Wrad (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give that a go at some point, but probably not for a few days now. Got an exam on Friday, you see. Also, these readings depend very much on interpretation of the sonnet, so it might take me a while to get the feel of each one. Finally, just out of interest, what do you think of my reading of Sonnet 18? – PeeJay 19:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'm just glad someone else's come along to help out. I like your reading. I was really tired when I did mine. I'll just see if I can make yours louder and take out the hissing. Wrad (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Current audio file is a piss take - it has a shitty Für Elise in the background and the guy reading it is putting on such a crappy voice you can even hear people laughing. Sort this out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.25.141.176 (talk) 15:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

David Gilmour(of Pink Floyd) did a recording of this on his 2002 concert DVD. Probably won't get permission to use it though.[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rj1954 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For God's sake, fix this audio file! It's horrible... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.212.27.198 (talk) 16:18, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's absolutely terrible. Somebody please change it. VenomousConcept (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I have deleted it. Graham Colm (talk) 16:24, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Exegesis

I think the exegesis of line six has become confused and doesn't reflect what the reference is saying.

Although the distinction between the two meanings of the world complexion is valid, the sonnet nevertheless still compares the subject favourably to the summer's day.

Currently the exegesis states: "The second meaning of "complexion" would communicate that the beloved's inner, cheerful, and temperate disposition is sometimes blotted out like the sun on a cloudy day. The first meaning is more obvious, meaning of a negative change in his outward appearance."

I suggest this should be amended to: "The second meaning of "complexion" would communicate that the beloved's inner, cheerful, and temperate disposition is never blotted out, unlike the sun on a cloudy day. The first meaning is more obvious, meaning of a negative change in the sun's outward appearance." Neilho (talk) 22:41, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. I'm surprised that anyone could conceivably read it the way it's currently explained. The entire motivation of these comparisons is to say "You want me to compare you to a summer's day? There's no comparison. You're even better, here are all of the problems that a summer's day has that you do not." He's clearly saying here that the person about whom the sonnet is being written DOESN'T have any of these issues. That her complexion, unlike that of the sun, is never dimmed by passing clouds; It shines constantly. Why in God's name would he insert a line that more or less says "yeah, but sometimes you're not that great"? How has this explanation stood unedited for 2 years? It is CLEARLY wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:56A:F10A:3900:F1B4:3E22:F815:E7AB (talk) 23:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I disagree completely with the interpretation that line 1 is paradoxical -- even if we assume the subject demurely declines the complement of being compared to a summer day, the speaker obviously intended to make the compliment -- ie to continue on with his comparison. So, what's the paradox? even looking at the citation, I don't see it argued as paradoxical. The cited essey does assume the subject's reply is negative, but that doesn't make a paradox. merely that we don't care about the other's actual reply. wouldnt that be more retorical? - cteague 12.11.157.130 (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Music composer of the Gilmour rendition

The music in Gilmour's rendition is actually the same in Bryan Ferry's one, which is credited to Kamen. I could not find any info about the credits on David Gilmour's dvd "David Gilmour in concert" (at Robert Wyatt Meltdown) to which the song belongs that validates the thesis the track is credited Shakespeare/Gilmour (whereas the one from Bryan Ferry, on the Princess Diana Tribute disc is credited Shakespeare/Kamen ). I did not correct the page since, having no evidences to show, my statement is exactely as worth as the existing one. Is anyone in possession of something verifying my thesis to amend the article? (or contraddicting it, of course, for my own knowledge ;)) Botty75 (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Sonnet template

In the next days (or possibly weeks) I plan to update the {{Sonnet}} infobox which sits at the top of this, and all the other individual Sonnet articles, to the new template which currently resides at {{Sonnet/sandbox}}. This will not alter the images or text currently displayed in the articles, only the formatting and features of the box. I'm posting here, as it is (I believe) the most-watched Sonnet article... and at WT:BARD. If anyone has any objections or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Phil wink (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarification: I did in fact update the text, too. I had intended to take this step in the future, but events coalesced. Phil wink (talk) 04:07, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"to darl" in the Exegesis

[Comment moved from "Exegesis" section and a separate heading added by: Xover (talk) 11:28, 15 February 2017 (UTC)]

I can find no references to a usage of the verb "to darl" in the sense of a green bud showing its eventual color as described in this section. There seems to be a widespread agreement that darling exclusively derives from the Old English dēorling, which makes a usage as a gerund -- as described in this section -- impossible. If such a usage did indeed exist, it would be good to cite some sources, here. Sethur2 (talk) 09:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I can find no reference to "darl" as a verb anywhere, let alone with the meaning of a bud about to flower, and least of all in connection with Shakespeare's use in this sonnet. The OED only lists the OE derivation dēorling, and the sense "dear, beloved, favorite" (etc.). The relevant interpretation was added by Jackie140 in this edit. Perhaps they can specify their source for this information? --Xover (talk) 11:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

It's likely that Jackie140 found this in some obscure commentary about Shakespeare and repeated it here. If no one can come up with a reference to an old usage of the proposed verb "to darl" as described in the paragraph, I would argue to remove it altogether rather quickly. I find it strange that this was not noted earlier considering the popularity of Sonnet 18. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethur2 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:NORUSH. It's been in there for about a year; it'll keep a while longer. Jackie140 appears to only edit intermittently, so let's give them some time to notice this discussion and chime in. --Xover (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

This is solved now, any mention of "to darl" was edited out of the exegesis. Do we remove this discussion now or is it considered best practice to leave it to minimize the chance of repeated mistakes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethur2 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sethur2: Thanks for fixing this, and my apologies for not following up on this. There are a lot of pages on my watchlist and I may not always see changes if I am not specifically notified using {{re|xover}} or {{ping|xover}}. In any case, best practice (policy, in fact) is to leave discussions on talk pages for the benefit of future editors. --Xover (talk) 07:24, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits

An IP editor, who I recently reverted, has attempted to justify the edit on my talk page, so I'm moving that discussion here, for what it's worth. Phil wink (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Sweeping statements

Salutations. You recently deleted a revision of Sonnet 18 made by me with no reasonable explanation of your motives, rather reverting to a baseless accusation of bowdlerisation. I find this very distasteful. Isolated citation means very little unless its presence elevates the overall quality of a text. This should be obvious. First of all, Shakespeare was straight. He had a wife and had three children and there is strong evidence that he was implicated in at least one extramarital affair, again with another woman. This is simply non-viable for anyone with homosexual propensities, particularly an upper-middle class man beholden to no lady (other than his mother, of course). That information, in conjunction with no recorded historical evidence, or even implicit corollaries, of Shakespeare ever having had any homosexual relationship, utterly precludes any imposition that he was gay or bisexual and unequivocally discredits even the proposition. What we see is a straight, married man, a father at that, in a normatively straight epoch, being classed as an LGBT paragon (when there is no evidence that he was even an advocate in any shape or form!) in total incomprehension of the facts and rock-solid epistemological basis of all contrary evidence, on the mere grounds that he wrote a few fairly ribald sonnets or contrived some interesting pictorial wordplay (from a contemporary perspective). And even that is only credible if one makes the (groundless) assumption that Shakespeare writes from a self-referential subjective point-of-view, rather than as some sort of fictional persona poem/monologue with some degree of internal focalisation. Frankly, the brilliance of Shakespeare, particularly his poetry, lies in the fact that we can have no certainty as to whether he is relating or recalling his personal experiences, or he has simply projected some narrative voice for the benefit of his audience or patron. As Sonnet 18 in particular is addressed to some W.H., and Shakespeare was a highly-experienced poet, this, in fact, notionally lends greater credence to his having layered it to some extent to please this equivocal entity. Furthermore, as I intimated earlier, this was not a time period of thriving homosexuality (either overt or covert), although I'm sure you can think of some such as Wilde etc. The Reformation had taken hold across Western Europe, with its own particular strain in England, and everyone was on vigil to ensure immediate sanction of any manifestation of Christian dissent. With this sonnet addressed to some esteemed nobleman in the prime of life, it would appear rational to deduce that Shakespeare addressed it with the object of meeting some personal need of his patron (e.g. having some romantic poet to brag about in his country house to his wealthy posse (or perhaps some lady-friend)). Making the logical presumption that the aforementioned fellow was well-educated, it would be simply inappropriate to write it directly to him as some conspicuous display of sycophantry. He would be so patently disinclined to it. Moreover, if I even go so far as to cede all that and, thus, your veracity on the matter, you must understand that sort of behaviour was widespread back in his day and had very different social implications (see: Romantic friendship). The monarch, even after Shakespeare, was frequently said to have a 'favourite', a strong companion of either sex, but one whom they certainly would not be having sexual relations with. King David and Jonathan had a very close fraternal relationship, which is well-documented in Scripture, even with terms such as 'love' (which meant something very different to what it does today), that transcended the ages. Douglas Bush puts it best: Since modern readers are unused to such ardour in masculine friendship and are likely to leap at the notion of homosexuality… we may remember that such an ideal, often exalted above the love of women, could exist in real life, from Montaigne to Sir Thomas Browne, and was conspicuous in Renaissance literature. Unfortunately (for some), this means that Shakespeare was not a poster boy for LGBT relationships, which have been (in art and antiquity), and are particularly romanticised today, with the advent of the LGBT rights movement. This also means, more specifically, that terms describing the Fair Youth sequence as homoerotic, even when circulated among select scholars, are a misconstruction and, as such, out-of-place. With that said, and in accordance to my due moral justice, you shall permit me to revert the page to my original edit. 81.107.32.22 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Who wrote this pish?

A very strong contender for the greatest poem ever written, and this is its Wikipedia article? If only Shakespeare had written something queerer. 84.68.54.237 (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

A queer agenda

Because this article is occasionally vandalized by editors with the very queer agenda indeed of denying that any dude would write a poem about another dude, I thought I'd just quote a few modern scholars on the topic. I have not picked these sources because of any particular viewpoints they espouse; they are simply the modern critical editions of the Sonnets I had to hand. More can be, but need not be, found. Emphases are my own, showing that these scholars are by no means offering a new or unusual view.

• "General opinion divides the sonnets into two main groups… The first comprises 1-126, which may be addressed to one young man, the poet's much loved and admired friend, his junior in years and superior in social station." (Douglas Bush in Harbage 1969: 1449)
• "The first hundred and twenty-six poems in Shakespeare's book are apparently addressed to a beautiful young man." (Kerrigan 1995: 7)
• "[T]he first 126 sonnets seem to be addressed to a young man, beloved of the poet, of superior beauty and rank but of somewhat questionable morals and constancy." (Hallet Smith in Evans 1997: 1839-1840)
• "[T]here is therefore some basis for the widespread critical belief that sonnet 126 is intended to mark a division between sonnets principally concerned with a male beloved and those principally concerned with a woman." (Booth 2000: 430) This, by the way, from a scholar who really doesn't wish to characterize Shakespeare's sexuality.
• "Like Barnfield's twenty sonnets to 'Ganymede', but unlike every other Elizabethan sequence, Shakespeare's sonnets 1-126 celebrate a young male love-object" (Duncan-Jones 2010: 46)

If you feel sincerely and to the depths of your solar plexus that these scholars have fallen into damnable error, well, I don't expect that listing more scholars will alter your view. However, before performing a gender-reassignment to the article, please read WP:Verifiability, not truth and see if you can find modern reliable sources that show that the "widespread critical belief" has changed. Cheers. Phil wink (talk) 20:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)