tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post6441731042936634451..comments2023-10-03T11:41:21.191+01:00Comments on The Truth About Lies: The SonnetsJim Murdochhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-4229854824680313042009-06-17T15:26:04.313+01:002009-06-17T15:26:04.313+01:00Glad to see that, Ken. Just remember there's a...Glad to see that, <b>Ken</b>. Just remember there's a fine line between being honest and being a complete eejit.<br /><br />And, <b>Art</b>, appreciate the links. I'll have a good read at them later - the head's a bit out of it today.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-50765524405371401092009-06-17T13:56:20.749+01:002009-06-17T13:56:20.749+01:00Tony Kushner, "Angels In America," start...Tony Kushner, "Angels In America," started life as two stage plays; actually one bigger play broken into two plays. Both won lots of awards when staged. The two sections are labeled "Millenium Approaches" and "Perestroika." <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angels_in_America<br /><br />http://www.sparknotes.com/drama/angels/canalysis.htmlArt Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-66755406364231813952009-06-17T11:31:50.494+01:002009-06-17T11:31:50.494+01:00I'm glad of that. I'm pushing my own '...I'm glad of that. I'm pushing my own 'honesty boundaries' a bit harder these days and it feels good if a little challenging.<br /><br />I don't get the sonnets either...Ken Armstronghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07775956557261111127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-5015031579552401682009-06-17T10:13:29.254+01:002009-06-17T10:13:29.254+01:00The thing I've noticed, Ken, is that no matter...The thing I've noticed, <b>Ken</b>, is that no matter how well-informed you think you are there will always be someone out there who knows – or think they know – more than you and want to put you in your place. There is always more to know. By most people's standards I'm an expert on Beckett but then most people I've met are doing well if they've actually heard of <i>Waiting for Godot</i>. Maybe I've just been mixing with the wrong kind of people. <br /><br />The fact is that I'm exploring a lot of new areas at the moment and my little essays are me looking for approval from the world; it's certainly not showing off. My aim is to get up to the level of saying something intelligent. I hope I do occasionally. In the meantime I share what I find. And this seriously isn't false modesty. I'm simply accutely aware of my limitations. I've forgotten more about Beckett than most people know but then I forget most things I learn within a few days. I'm constantly rechecking my facts.<br /><br />Honesty <i>is</i> the best policy. And let's also remember that a lot of the time I'm stating an opinion, like the one you disagreed with concerning <i>Shakespeare in Love</i>. I'm embarrassed that I didn't check my facts there. But there you go. You're comment really cheered me up last night, so I'd just like to make a point of saying thank you for that. It was appreciated more than you may realise.<br /><br />And, talking about people who <i>always</i> know more than me, that brings me to you, <b>Art</b>, and, while we're on the subject, I guess I should say a thank you to you for <i>not</i> making me feel stupid all the time. I am seriously jealous of your capacity to retain information.<br /><br />The good thing about us I find is that we can respectfully disagree with each other. I see where you're coming from regarding poems and I often read my own poems aloud to myself to make sure what I hear in my head works but the bottom line is that I do not intend my poetry to be read aloud even though it can be.<br /><br />As for Shakespeare's sonnets, until I read this book my exposure to them was so negligible as to count for nothing. I've really had very little exposure to pre-20th-century literature; it's never interested me. So I have to bow to your experience. Which I do.<br /><br />As for plays, I can think of no instance where Beckett suggested that his plays could work purely on the page. His basic unit of communication was the sound and so he was far more amenable to his prose works being read aloud or even performed than the other way around. I very rarely read plays. They don't work on the page for me. Studying them after the fact is another thing completely. That even applies to radio plays.<br /><br />Interesting that you mention "Angels in America". I've never seen it. I didn't even know it began life as a stage play. I must investigate further.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-52410115481186406812009-06-17T07:02:51.987+01:002009-06-17T07:02:51.987+01:00Well, certainly reading the plays is a different k...Well, certainly reading the plays is a different kinds of pleasure. It's a mostly literary pleasure. But plays are meant to be more than read.<br /><br />And so is poetry.<br /><br />I have maintained for years that a poem, to really succeed, needs to work on the page AND read aloud. Both modes are relevant, and both are important. Arguments have been made justifying one mode over the other, but example after example shows how lots of oral-dominant poetry just doesn't read well on the page, and lots of poetry that is so tied to the page that it can be thought of as native to the page simply doesn't transfer to any other medium, including being read aloud. One mode without the other being at least nodded to is incomplete, and the poem as a whole suffers as a result.<br /><br />The Sonnets do quite well on the page, I agree. And they also do quite well when read aloud. And my point was that there are things you're not going to learn about the Sonnets until you read them aloud, or hear them read well. There are facets to them that cannot be appreciated if they are only read in one's mind.<br /><br />As for the plays, I don't buy any argument that claims plays are purely literary, and don't need to be staged. (Not even Beckett made such an argument that I'm aware of.) The whole point of staging a play is to include more than one sensory mode: sight, sound, smell, kinesthesia, those all come alive when attending a dramatic performance—more so than watching a movie or TV, also.<br /><br />Although some plays have been done very well as movies or TV miniseries. "Angels In America" was a very good TV production. I've also sat down and read the play a few times. Again, my point is that the more modes you have available to you for taking an artwork in, the richer and more powerful it can be.Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-79108913001472678032009-06-16T22:37:18.108+01:002009-06-16T22:37:18.108+01:00It's your honesty that drags me back every tim...It's your honesty that drags me back every time... kicking and screaming obviously :) <br /><br />Those who don't know your blog well might expect that the Poet-Bloke will tell us how he loves The Sonnets and understands every nuance 'cos he's a bleedin' poet too innit?<br /><br />But no, you tell it like it is and that's special.<br /><br />For what it's worth, I *do* think Shakespeare in Love would have brought folk flocking to Romeo and Juliet. 'Could be wrong...ken armstronghttp://kenwriting.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-57307166031853499002009-06-16T18:21:04.258+01:002009-06-16T18:21:04.258+01:00Valid point, Nigel. I feel that way about poetry s...Valid point, <b>Nigel</b>. I feel that way about poetry so why not plays? I think what it is with Shakespeare is that I associate reading his plays with studying them. I had the same problem with Beckett. Until I had studied <i>Waiting for Godot</i> into the ground I really couldn't sit back and enjoy it for what it is.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-55203846425827730802009-06-16T17:31:00.436+01:002009-06-16T17:31:00.436+01:00"I think it all comes alive in the voice"..."I think it all comes alive in the voice"<br /><br />Funny, I find reading Shakespeare more appealing/fulfilling than watching his plays on stage...less distractions...more time to be with the words...<br /><br />and what words. Sonnets have to be the most beautiful poems ever written.NigelBealehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06094387597632333192noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-78666626954182106542009-06-16T16:06:22.844+01:002009-06-16T16:06:22.844+01:00Conda, I think the Ellis Peters remark is very val...<b>Conda</b>, I think the Ellis Peters remark is very valid and thanks for bringing it up. When I first began this book I wondered what the hell I was reading; the language and the mindset were so totally alien to me. Even short sentences felt convoluted and no one ever came straight out and said what they meant. Unlike one of Shakespeare's own plays at least only the dialogue was like this; even though Shakespeare is the narrator he thought processes are (thankfully) more modern.<br /><br />In some cases his mentor would read a sonnet and immediately go, "I see what you mean," and I'd look at the thing and think: Er, now the hell did he come to that conclusion from those words? And even when I'd done my research (admittedly confined to the Internet) I was still none the wiser. But the important thing is that it gives the Sonnets a framework where they make sense. As Art says, we will never know for sure, but this is as good a guess as any. It may not be right but it makes sense.<br /><br />The relationship between Shakespeare and his mentor perplexed me at first, <b>Art</b>. My naïve assumption was that this was going to be a homosexual encounter but really that's where the mindset was quite different. If I can twist a word to my own ends I would call the relationship 'homosensual' in that Shakespeare's experience of the man was a heightened, more open one without needing to express itself in any way beyond words.<br /><br />Like you I've seen more of Shakespeare's plays that any other playwright, mainly because he wrote so damn many, and I would agree that he comes alive in performance. I should probably have embedded a couple of YouTube videos of people reading from <i>The Sonnets</i> but it was supposed to be a book review even if I did allow myself to get a bit carried away in the research.<br /><br />And, <b>Dave</b>, what can I do but apologise? I will try harder from now on not to make the books so interesting. The simple fact is that had the book not come to be unbidden I would never have had an excuse to research all of this and if I'm being <i>totally</i> honest, I enjoyed the research more than the book BUT that's why I think this would be a good book for newbie students of Shakespeare because it encourages one to do research. It could likewise be read lying on a beach and forgotten the next day.<br /><br />Oh, on BBC4 tonight at 8:30 there's the start of a three-part series, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00l7qpy" rel="nofollow"><i>The Pre-Raphaelites</i></a> which I suspect will be right down your street.Jim Murdochhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12786388638146471193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-43562777178928980212009-06-16T11:37:02.846+01:002009-06-16T11:37:02.846+01:00You've done it again, haven't you? You'...You've done it again, haven't you? You've compelled me to buy yet another book that I would not have dreamed of buying but for your fab' review. Okay, so it's not a book of scholarship, I've got that much, but you've made it sound a <i>must</i> nevertheless. I am sure that after I have read it I shall be thanking you in no uncertain terms, but just now I'm mumbling into my non-existent beard.Dave Kinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08430484174826768488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-6755236568407175462009-06-15T22:56:01.413+01:002009-06-15T22:56:01.413+01:00Fascinating post and review for me, Jim. I've ...Fascinating post and review for me, Jim. I've always been intrigued by Tudor times, including anything to do with Shakespeare. <br /><br />As I was reading your review, I remembered what Ellis Peters said when someone asked her if the Brother Cadfael mysteries were historically correct although fiction. <br />Her (paraphrased by my memory) response:<br />"Only in terms of places and events. It's impossible to be accurate in terms of the characters. After the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution, the very patterns of our thinking completely changed. We don't know how people thought."<br /><br />I think that applies here with Shakespeare.Conda Douglashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12972790965426924941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6327348657265652781.post-48289091123999979782009-06-15T17:56:02.852+01:002009-06-15T17:56:02.852+01:00Well, it's pretty hard to deny the homoerotic ...Well, it's pretty hard to deny the homoerotic content, or context, of Marlowe's "Edward II." That's pretty explicit. <br /><br />What we do know is that the historical context of Elizabethan England wasn't quite as anti-homosexual as modern times. It may not have been exactly tolerated or approved, but it was also looked at in some ways more objectively than we do now. Love was love. If there was a shocking aspect to plays with homosexual characters, it wasn't the homosexuality that was the chief shocking point, it was other aspects of the drama.<br /><br />Or so a great deal of the research I've read on the period seems to conclude.<br /><br />Most of the research on who the Sonnets are addressed to is quite inconclusive, so people can believe whatever they like. It fascinates me that opinions have gotten so entrenched and so virulent. From my perspective, it all rather reminds me of both the title and contents of E.M. Forster's short story, quite relevant to this discussion, titled "What Does It Matter?"<br /><br />I rather enjoyed the conceit of "Shakespeare In Love" because it toyed with some of the historical Shakespeare scholarship, and tweaked the scholars while also being a love comedy. Since I've read a lot of the Will scholarship, I doubly enjoyed the movie for its inside jokes.<br /><br />We did the Sonnets in high school, in senior English. We also did a number of the plays. <br /><br />As a boy, I was in Ann Arbor, MI, only a day's drive from Stratford, Ontario, where there's an annual summer Shakespeare festival, and so my family drove to Stratford every year to take in some plays. I've seen at least 75 percent of the plays in production, and Hamlet at least three times.<br /><br />I think it all comes alive in the voice.<br /><br />I have a recording of John Gielgud reading the entire Sonnets, on two CDs. To hear them read aloud makes all the difference, for me. One learns a great deal about the poem's form, and how Will pushed it and worked with it. For example, one classic mistake most beginning sonneteers make is to get stuck on the end-rhymes, and end phrases at the the end of every line. This makes it very sing-songy. If you listen to Will's Sonnets, you realize that his full sentences within the poems often cross the ends of lines, turning end-rhymes into more subtle internal rhymes, and also making each poem cohere more.Art Durkeehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07463180236975988432noreply@blogger.com