March 16, 2005

Shakespeare, a different view

To Shakespeare's Man

1. Thou wert, apparently, more beautiful,
Than dryad, nymph, fair siren's song,
That phrases elegand and plentiful
Did flowst from Bard's mouth, like a river long.
So 't'would everlong run, a monument,
To thy wondrous visage, that men hath said,
If they had half thy looks, would be content
Pyramids, chruches, Helen in her bed.
Yet twerps who read out poems do not know
Your name, place, status, hair colour, nor can
They remember S. placed own worth below
Yours, nor do girlfriends know you are a man.
So we (instead of you, forgotten quick)
Remember Shakespeare, monumental prick.

2. I pity you, who's beauty Shakespeare sought,
Entombed in words, eternally onlooked,
By those like you trapped in schools, or else bought
In sappy cards, copied by kids from books,
Where you are half remembered, not recalled,
As muse of one's talents, who knew himself
(delluding you that beauty fades nor falls)
He would be famed, remembered, and yourself
Would be evidence to what we suspect
But shouldn't care for, it's talent we hear,
Your only remembrance, what could be more perfect,
Is proof that Shakespeare really was quite queer.
So a poem to set you free I offer
Hoping my talents none will remember.

- 5 comments by 1 or more people Not publicly viewable

  1. They yours? Awesome

    16 Mar 2005, 01:30

  2. Hmm. Great idea, but I think the form here is conmstraining you, rather than liberating, and it's difficult to get the sense at points. Try cutting out the "Thou wert" when you mean "you were" and forget the 'est' endings and stuff. The second poem's better than the first in this respect. I'm not sure I agree that we ought to remember the muse before the writer (being a writer myself!) but I agree that sometimes poets write stuff ostensibly about someone else, but end up glorifying themselves instead of their subject. Wether this is intentional or not, I don't know. But I'll stop talking like an English essay now…

    16 Mar 2005, 09:26

  3. The "thou wert" stuff is supposed to be a deliberately bad parody of Shakespearian vocabulary, hence it stays.

    And you've studied Shakespeare's sonnets, he goes on and on about how he'll only be remembered because his muse was soooo wonderful, when I think the git knew full well he'd be remembered for being such a good writer. Why else would he leave no clue to who the muse was?

    16 Mar 2005, 20:00

  4. Political constraints? Or the fact that being homosexual was considddered a mortal sin, and also a crime in those days, and so if there was any hint that it was based on a real person, he could possibly have been imprisoned? Just a guess.

    17 Mar 2005, 09:31

  5. Political I can accept, but as far as homosexuality goes it was perfectly possible for men to have a platonic relationship with other men, kind of like a protege thing, involving the writing of poetry (and more disturbingly 'love apples'). Political yeah, that's entirely possible, but I prefer my theory ;)

    17 Mar 2005, 17:48

Add a comment

You are not allowed to comment on this entry as it has restricted commenting permissions.

March 2005

Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa Su
Feb |  Today  | Apr
   1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31         

Search this blog



Most recent comments

  • sucks. by agrg on this entry
  • same thing happened to me in a factory worked in. I was late a couple of times because one of the bl… by gareth on this entry
  • odsosj rn osdosj rtn dososj rtn odfodsosj rtn ososj rnt odsosj rtn odsosj rtn odsosj rtn odsosj rtn … by d on this entry
  • d by d on this entry
  • siahfjdskdsjfhenflkxnvkjglnfkdshfdskfhdkfjd by iuy on this entry

Blog archive

Not signed in
Sign in

Powered by BlogBuilder