Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Copeland
How do you feel, Shaun, about “Shakespeare’s Metrical Art” by George Wright? It has a narrower focus, but it was an eye-opener for me, and I need to read it again (and again).
|
I have a copy of that at hand right now, but I must admit that I haven't done more than skim it for research purposes. It's been a busy semester, and I haven't been able to do much in the way of research, but I'll be looking into it more in the break. But I would say that if it was useful to you, then that's what matters! Robert Giroux's
The Book Known as Q was my first thorough entree into the sonnets. I later realized that it's chock full of falsehoods, and probably did my later understanding of the sonnets more harm than good, but it was great at getting me
in to them, and suggesting all sorts of curious possibilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick McRae
Would you consider these books to be relevant to his poetic style in his plays as well? I guess in an ideal world the perfect book would analyze his writing style across all of his texts, not just his sonnets, but we have to take what we can get.
|
So, this is definitely one of the problems with Shakespeare studies. They are very stratified. I feel pretty confident in my ability to talk/write about Shakespeare's plays (i.e. I'm trusted to teach courses on Shakespeare and Drama), but in terms of academic research, I'm known as a "poetry guy" rather than a "drama guy." And even though this is largely a false distinction, it does actually exist. And so you can typically look at a book on Shakespeare and it will mostly talk about
either his plays or his poems. There are often further stratifications too, which says more about the nature of academic scholarship than it does about Shakespeare (obviously). Since I'm working on a monograph about Shakespeare's sonnets (which has been significantly slowed due to my high teaching load), I'm currently surrounded by around 100 books that are mostly about his poems (and most of those on the sonnets in particular). Few of them get into the plays, because the field sees them as generically distinct. For what it's worth
this is largely why I pushed back a bit against Susan's comments earlier in this thread about how Shakespeare's plays are poems. In a sense, I 100% agree, but from a practical generic standpoint, they're simply different beasts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by W. T. Clark
I always stagger to conceive how many people have denied that Shakespeare didn't, in some sense, want to fuck men.
|
Right? And yet as recently as Stephen Booth's deservedly lauded 1977 critical edition, the editor hedges, claiming "William Shakespeare was almost certainly homosexual, bisexual, or heterosexual. The sonnets provide no evidence on the matter" (p. 548). What Booth is likely going for here is that the sonnets may or may not even be biographical (something mentioned earlier in this thread), though I agree that it would be awfully strange to have 126 sonnets expressing unrequited love to and for a young man if there was no personal stake.