Stage Beauty- Admiring Sonnets
The first question I had while reading these three sonnets was whether they are all still to the same person. The first seventeen seemed very directed to one person, whereas a 36 and 55 struck me as very universal. The relationship of mentor mentee is not altogether done away with in these three poems, for Shakespeare continues to be the dominant one in the relationship, making choices for the good of the object of the poem. In 36 it seems he is very directly telling the OOP that it's not going to work out between the two of them. "Let me confess that we two must be twain," and "Nor thou with public kindness honor me." It seems that he's telling the OOP that they loved each other, but it wasn't going to turn out well, urging and directing him to take another path.
Sonnet 20 seems to be Shakespeare lamenting this reality. He states "Till Nature, as she wrought thee, feel a-doting,/ and by addition me of thee defeated." He explains why he's so attracted to the OOP "A woman's face... A women's gentle heart... An eye more bright than theirs," yet also "A man in hue, all hues in his controlling." He laments that nature has made a mistake by turning this beautiful women into a man, but since the mistake has been made, their love is the true one, even though women may borrow the OOP. In this Sonnet, the relationship of mentor is very subtle if in fact it exists at all, but for some reason this sonnet just cracked me up. I love how it's basically saying, 'You're the perfect woman, but nature gave you the wrong equipment." It reminded me of the movie "Stage Beauty" that we watched in Drama class last quarter. It centered on a famous male actor who played female roles and had so accustomed himself to the movements and mannerisms of a woman that he could do little else.
Sonnet 36 made me think a lot about the meaning of love itself. Shakespeare says "In our two loves there is but one respect,/Though in our lives a separable spite,/ Which though it alter not love's sole effect,/Yet doth it steal sweet hours from love's delight." I already described the way I saw Shakespeare as a mentor in this Sonnet, directing that the OOP must move on. It's the way Shakespeare views the nature of love in this context that interests me most. The lines "Which though it alter not love's sole effect," and "I love thee in such sort, As, though being mine, mine is thy good report." stuck out to me. What is love's sole effect? What is he talking about here? Wanting the other person to have the best, a "good report"? Is the line between loving this young man as a mentee to encourage and help, loving him romantically, loving him like a son, and loving him like a friend really as important as we view it? If you want the best for someone else no matter what, and you'll sacrifice your own good for theirs, how much do the labels matter?
Sonnet 55 left me in wonder at how accurate Shakespeare's predictions were. He states that his descriptions of the OOP are going to live on through war, though monuments crumble and time march on, and that's essentially what has happened.


Well...
So I agree with a few of the thoughts that you say. but i didn't put so many words to mine. The part where you say "Sonnet 36 made me think a lot about the meaning of love itself" Iagree but I was feeling alot of resentment in these 3. he seems to be sad and irratated with the situation. i wonder if i'm the only one that is seeing this.?.?. He seems sad because this man he loves is wonderful with a "womans gentle heart" BUT INFACT HAS A PENIS... lol...
katie
For sure!
I definitely sensed the resentment. In 20, he seems almost angry with nature and angry with the way things have happened. Then in 36 he is sad that they cannot be together. There is also irritation, saying he won't strip the OOP of his honor but he sure wishes the OOP would come to his level. So basically, no. You're not the only one seeing this. I can sense it too.
-Renee Ward
mistake?!?!?!
I'm going to suggest that nature doesn't make mistakes, though we may not like the outcome. What Nature did was discover that she did such a fine job in creating the OOP that she had to have him for herself, so she, as the poem goes, turned this beautiful woman into a man. She, Nature, couldn't give up her creation. Bradley
Bradley
Labels don't matter
I liked what you said about labels not mattering; who cares if Shakespeare was friends, lovers, or a mentor of the OOP? Obviously he cared about the OOP, and that should be all that matters. This reminded me of my best friend, who is a gay male. A lot of people seem to think that I secretly have a crush on him, or that it must be hard to avoid falling in love with him, which is ridiculous. I love him in that he is my best friend, but I would never want a sexual relationship with him. Shakespeare and the OOP could just be "super best friends" as my friend and I are.
I interpreted sonnet 20 differently than you did; I thought Shakespeare was saying that all the women wanted to be with the OOP, but we agreed that Shakespeare and the OOP shared a true love, and that the women might have sex with the OOP but they would never be loved by him like Shakespeare is.
-Hilary
Jr. High Labels
This line of thought made me think of the Jr. High approach to crushes. "I know you like him, but do you LIKE like him?" I've thought for a long time that the English language fails in that there is only one word for love and it's expected to cover the love of friends, brothers, and couples. But maybe the problem is how we view love. The focus on romantic love in the context of media has moved so far away from the kind of love that friends and siblings share that it seems ludicrous to call them by the same name. Making out and fawning over a friend or brother is simply not acceptable. But are either of those things central to what love itself is? Not really. Love is the same context and can be just as deep and meaningful in any context. Yet the relationship of lovers means something else again, and not entirely physical. Where exactly, does the line lie?
Erin Kay Schulz
love is
. . . a many splendored thing. I think that comes from some schlocky song in the sixties or seventies. But it is. We've got the old, "I love you, but I'm not in love with you" as the perfect example of just how ambiguous the whole business is. It's hard for me as a reader, and someone who has been in love a number of times, and jilted a number of times, to not see some notion of romantic, courtly love in these poems. There is the element of the unattainable, that the love cannot be acknowledged. In and of itself, that doesn't make the poet's desire sexual, but it becomes hard to side-step that element. I mean, 154 poems for the BFF? I've got some friends who mean the world to me, and I've not written them a single poem. My wife? Two poems. Of course, I'm no Shakespeare. That leaves me thinking the bond and attraction are incredibly strong. Bradley
Bradley