If Love be naught but memory and Time
brings naught but death to Love, however strong-
Still here I'll stay, a happy ghost I'll be,
And I shall love, though sense would prove me wrong
For Love cannot be measured by the length
Of Time one lover spends to grieve its loss:
For, though You cry no more, there's no less strength-
The love I bear for you will not be tossed
About with every wave of chance, and though
Without me there, Your heart would carry on,
I stand a monument, I'll weather through
The wind and rain to represent what's gone
And I will stand to warn those who would choose
To gamble All for love: "All's what you'll lose!"
Please tell me what you think
Comments
-
Well, perhaps you can prove Shakespeare wrong that by Nature, you women are fickle. After all, Shakespeare may not have been preferring men sexually so much as claiming that men are more constant and intelligent by Nature. The liberals do not want to admit this you see. I read a book called the "Poltically Incorrect Guide to Literature" and as I had gathered, Shakepeare speaks about Nature, for he mourns that Nature deigned the love of man to be a sin in Sonnet XX. Chrsitian belief, as you may know, is that homosexuality is a sin against Nature. It directly opposes the Nature of intercourse that is, which is procreation, which is why traditionally in theology, contraception is also immoral, because it is directly unatural. But this it not a theological lesson nor a literature lesson, but a review.
I especially love your message. I suppose I am feeling inconstant and your line "for love cannot be measured by the length / of Time one lover spends to grieve its loss" is very powerful to me.
Now indeed, perhaps it just moves me, just as the nightingale moved Shakespeare in the Sonnets to the Sundry Notes of Music, but that is what great art does. It is able to move people in various ways according to their situation. But I think every "loving heart and captive soul" as Dante calls it in his first sonnet of La Vita Nuova, can relate to that time when their soul is sad and in love, but does no weep their sadness nor the loss of their love and feels inconstant even. So your poem has the power to heal such scruples of the heart, as even it did mine. Great poetry does this, and I think you very well conveyed your message, though I think we see from our revered William Shakespeare that the great poet will learn to not only convey a message, but convey it well. For I very much love John Keats imagery, however his mastery of words is nothing compared to Shakespeare in my opinion. Keats was excellent at conveying an allegorical and powerful message, but not as good with the mastery of language in my opinion. But I may hold a prejudice by judging him to Shakespeare, to whom no one can really be judged. So since I believe a reviewer is there not to be kind, nor to be cruel, but simply to state his belief--though criticism gives way to cynicism always which is why it is wise never to trust the critics. Hence, though the language shows much talent, I think that is where you need to improve. Of course I am guilty of this too, but I am improving. We are young, and youthful writing makes later writing great. You may look back on this and hate it one day, even though it is good. Michelangelo hated his work, imagine that. He did not see it as good enough to glorify God. And after St. Thomas Aquinas had a vision from God, he compared all he had written in the Summa to straw, though it is perhaps the greatest theological work EVER written. He was a genius. So people often are dissatisfied with their good art, so do not lose heart. I think it is because they measure it to something so lofty, like love or God. Remember, in De Oratre (On the Orator), Cicero criticises the writings of his youth, though others enjoy them because he sees how naive he was. This is good youthful writing and it shows talent. You convey your message well, but mastering language takes time. But you have a better mastery than most far older than yourself. Read Shakespeare in depth. Read Venus and Adonis and the Rape of Lucrece. They have helped me, as I have developed a new narrative poem style, and of course Hamlet is always good to read again. I am sure you have read it, but I had to refer to it the other day in a letter, and I just still was smitten by the power of language. I might almost say it makes all of Shakespeare's other's work look like straw!
I hope my review has helped. -
-
Thank you, it was helpful. I agree, I am an avid reader of Shakespeare and return especially to Hamlet often.
-
-
Alas, it is hard to read anything else right after you finish reading Shakespeare. Even Spenser was difficult to read and enjoy the talent. I am not sure if one can say one is the greatest arist of a certain field, such as Mozart, of music, but perhaps we can say Shaksepare was the greatest poet of the Enlgish language. His power of the words as well as the deepness of his verse seems unsurpassed. Everyone else, myself included, sacrifices one for the other, but it seems Shakspeare mastered both equally.
-
-
Adding your comment:
