You would be much forgiven upon beginning Don Paterson’s
‘Shakespeare’s sonnets’ in the Guardian yesterday to expect a well constructed, soundly debated and articulately communicated piece of prose in which the author actually does try to ‘get back to what the poet was actually saying.’
Whilst I do not wish this response to his article to turn into a diatribe on what is stylistically acceptable of such a topic, I do open with my conclusion that this is an overly long self indulgent mini essay that never clarifies the point behind its mission statement. As entertaining as a 2 paragraph conjecture into the relationship between ‘Kit’ Marlowe and Bill Shakespeare may be, or that Shakespeare was as gay as the day is long, this was certainly not the discourse I was expecting to read, nor did it shed meaningful light on Shakespeare’s sonnets - unless of course you account for the obvious notion that he merely wrote them as an egotistical project in the battle for Wriothesley’s affection. I can very well believe that he wrote this whilst stuck on Bioshock on the Playstation. You may need an OED on hand to interpret Shakespeare, but you need a bottle of scotch to even begin to start making sense of Paterson’s point (s?).
One fundamental problem I have throughout is Paterson’s clear view that the narrative voice of the sonnets is unquestionably the author himself. Not once is it considered that such a close biographical reading has serious limitations on their meaning - which I do believe WAS the intended point of the article?? That Shakespeare was simply a playwright and poet by profession- and a very good one at that - there is no scope for. No, the dramatis personae of his works must be historical figures and the sentiments conveyed, be Shakespeare’s own.
Admittedly I do applaud Paterson’s differentiating primary and secondary readings of poetry and agree that the two have separate intended outcomes. That said, I must question that when a reader – primary or secondary -seeks the meaning of a poem it is solely on their assumption of ‘that’s how you read poetry.’ Surely to appreciate any opinion or point, or have a sentiment or feeling evoked, you must primarily translate a meaning. How can anything resonate if you do not understand it? Having never fully gotten to grips with art for art’s sake, I believe it unnatural to not enquire further or wish to know more to make better sense of the words. Surely this is the only way they can truly come to life?
There is one point raised that I am wholly in agreement with, albeit a fairly common one amongst Shakespearean scholars, and that is Shakespeare’s influence on the sonnet and the shift in its previously accepted purpose for conveying courtly love. The Petrachan sonnet synonymous with idealistic and pure love is transplanted with Shakespeare’s obsessive and unhealthy equivalent.The liberation of the sonnet in form and theme I believe is really the crux of Paterson's article and a little more time spent exploring this rather than where to seat yourself by the cheese course at a dinner party, would have undoubtedly been a far more believable and logical read. However at the risk of running headlong into the same trap I’ll make sure to come full circle. So Shakespeare was saying what in his sonnets??
Answers on a postcard please.
