EC - The Libertine

Anyone who has seen a Johnny Depp movie before is aware of how brilliant he can portray characters, especially those with sinister or demented personality traits. That being said, his performance in the Libertine still does a stunning job showing us how blunt, intimidating and (this adjective is a cop-out) debaucherous the Earl of Rochester quite possibly could have been.

First off, it is quite obvious that Wilmot was a genius. Secondly, it is obvious that he is fully aware of his intellectual standing relative to nearly everyone he encounters. Whether it’s a comment he makes to his wife about her lack of an exciting personality (and how he prefers a monkey for company instead), a lesson he teaches to a nobleman in the street about life with regard to a possibly dishonest servant, or his condescending attitude toward King Charles II, the ruler of England, Depp hammers home the point that his character knows he is smarter than everyone else, most of whom consistently bore him. Even the other contemporary writers who seem to be his closest friends are kept at an arm’s length.

His greatest loves, according to legend were drinking, seduction of both men and women, and the literary arts. We can prove this by reading poems like ‘the Disabled Debauchee’, which gives us the stanza: Should any youth (worth being drunk) prove nice/And from his fair inviter meanly shrink/’Twill please the ghost of my departed vice/If, at my counsel, he repent and drink. Depp does an amazing job showing his love for seducing (only women though) the arts, and drinking. Additionally, the screenwriter added a very telling dialogue in which Wilmot asks his servant for ink, who instead brings him a pint of ale, thinking that he heard “drink,” leading us to believe that this was an oft-repeated request.

While the movie is very crude at times, Depp has no sex scenes, although his crude manner permeates the movie nonetheless, making actual sex needless to show this side of Wilmot. The movie spends a good amount of time around his life as a literary artist, detailing poems he has written in the past, a play he writes for the king, and even his ability to turn Elizabeth Barry, a strongly opinionated, poorly trained beauty into an amazing actress. The movie also shows in great detail (as I have previously mentioned in a blog) how he despised King Charles II, a claim made valid by his stanza in ‘Upon Nothing’ where he states: Whilst weighty Something modestly abstains/From princes coffers and from statesman’s brains/And nothing there like Something reigns?

The fact the Depp can bring this character to life seems to merely be a tribute to his acting, but the fact that his performance was so brilliant and so breathtaking leads me to believe that a little of the credit should be given to Wilmot, the vivacious debauchee himself and the colorful life he provided for Depp to imitate.

EC - Tom Jones

Weeks after watching Tom Jones I was still unsure of how I could relate this story to a work we read in class. Even though it was set during the same time and in the same place as most of the works we have read during the year, I could not think of a similar theme or work and grew continually frustrated. While re-reading Everyman for the final, the light bulb turned on, and hopefully that will enable me to formulate an intriguing comparison.

This play/movie can be treated as a morality play with very similar themes to Everyman. For reference, I have created a list of the roles that characters in Everyman would be represented by in Tom Jones. Not every characteristic portrayed by an actor in Tom Jones had an accompanying characteristic in Everyman, but if they didn’t, I compared them to a type of character that could conceivably by cast into this kind of play.

• Tom Jones, of course, is Everyman, a poor confused soul who does not know his place in life and may die very soon.
• Squire Alworthy is God, the figure who has adopted the unworthy child but who eventually comes to feel (and rightly so) that the child does not appreciate all that has been given to him, despite God’s efforts to grant mercy.
• Sophie is Discretion. Though Beauty might be the more obvious choice, Discretion is the better characteristic. Discretion carries more redeeming value than Beauty and although it takes him a long time, he finally comes to see the value of Discretion first and foremost. Ultimately, Tom will be better off by choosing her.
• Molly is Lust. Plain and simple, by pursuing her, Tom will be putting carnal pleasure above everything else, as she has nothing to offer but sultry sexuality.
• Mr. Square is Knowledge, whom Tom is affected by, even if he does not actively pursue learning. I have no explanation for the love affair between Lust and Knowledge in Tom Jones but hopefully this can be overlooked.
• Mr. Thwackum is Good Deeds: While Thwackum’s idea of Good Deeds is a strict adherence to scripture, Tom has a different philosophy of how he can truly be good and honorable, unconventional though they may be.
• Squire Western is fellowship. As Tom has no actual friends per se, it logically follows that Western is the next best choice because as long as he is happy with Tom, Tom is free to socialize with who he wishes, free from persecution or attack.
• Mr. Blifil is Strength. Although he his far from powerful by conventional definitions, nearly every character in the play is enthralled by him and only through an equal strength of will can Tom hope to overcome this dangerous rival.

The play follows a linear storyline, similar to that in morality plays in which the lead character can make the right choice or the right choice and is influenced along his path by characteristics that are both helpful and harmful. Being tempted by Lust and not adhering to the guidance of Knowledge and Good Deeds will anger God, but in the end, Tom finds enough inner Strength to overcome his adversaries and chooses Discretion, which saves his from an unfortunate end.

Even if this seems a little farfetched, there are undeniable traits of Tom Jones linking it to morality. Despite Tom’s shameless flirtation he always treats the ladies with the utmost courtesy and respect. He seems to want what is best for each of them. He visits Molly at home to court her at her request and saves Sophie from her runaway horse at his own peril. And although I won’t deny that he enjoys their company, I make the argument that respect, not lust drives his fornications. He respects each woman too much to turn her down, not wishing to disappoint and reject her. With the exception of Sophie, Tom never initiates flirtation, only returning it and letting the women lead him down the path that they desire.

EC - Shakespeare in Love

When we think about Shakespeare, we think of a Romeo and Juliet, Henry V, Macbeth, Julius Caesar and so many more of his dazzling works filled with true action, wit, and amazing quotes. But for many years now he has only existed on paper, as a reflection of his work. Shakespeare in Love tries to recreate this, showing us what William Shakespeare’s life and ambition for living could have been.

The main thing that stuck out to me in the movie is how Shakespeare was able to accommodate everyone. Shakespeare managed to include cheap humor to satisfy the masses without tarnishing the overall quality of the play; he had Queen Elizabeth believe that his plays were written with her in mind and Henslowe believing he’d get to produce a pirate story. Viola (and Rosalyn) had plays written for them, Alleyn (Ben Affleck’s character) thought Romeo and Juliet was written for him to star in, and even the financial backer found himself playing a role that he deemed important. Shakespeare seems to have disproved the age-old adage; you can’t please everyone, at least when it came to his writing.

As for the story though, no matter how talented he was with words, it’s hard to believe that he could speak of love so powerfully without a model to project his words upon. Lines like And for a woman wert thou first created/Till nature as she wrought thee fell a-doting and Let not my love be called idolatry/Nor my beloved an idol show go to prove that Shakespeare was not only in love with a woman, but he literally worshipped her. What was this woman like and what did she do that caused such infatuation in Shakespeare? Did she dress up like a boy to more truly express her love, giving him inspiration for Twelfth Night? Doubtfully. But whatever trick she used, she managed to catch him hook, line, and sinker, reeling him into her heart and possibly inspiring some of the most beautiful poetry and prose available to speakers and readers of the English language. Shakespeare had to have a model for this grand affection. No one is talented enough to produce such quality work out of thin air… or is there?

Robert Swift's, The Lady's Dressing Room, certainly does an admirable job describing Lady Celia's grotesque beautification habits, bringing into question the concept of beauty during his era. As we are so far removed from women using Lead makeup and awful smells associated with consecutive weeks of non-bathing, it may be even easier for us to see how disgusting this is, but at the time, Swift was going against the contemporary notions of female beauty, which makes this work all the more impressive.

What makes this poem stick are the vivid descriptions Swift uses of the sight and scent of the less appealing elements used in beautification:
But oh! it turn'd poor Strephon's Bowels/When he beheld and smelt the Towels, as well as
A Paste of Composition rare/Sweat, Dandriff, Powder, Lead and Hair.

As he continues to add these grotesque descriptions of Celia, my main image his initial assessment of her being haughty, or very snobby and egotistical despite what she is subjecting herself (and those around her) to. There is no sense that, as a woman "squeezing a worm out of her nose," she should retract that nose from the perch she's placed it on, high in the air. Instead she seems to be content, even proud of her apperance.

Swift's parody on contemporary beauty is made great not only by the fact that he absolutely pounds his opinion into your head through your senses, but also because it seems as if the atrocious offender has no idea that she could be considered anything other than beautiful.

Blog Prompt - Imperfect Enjoyment

Howard Stern. Elvis. Hugh Hefner. Nowadays, the group of individuals who thrive in spite of (or because of) the fact that they cause such a shock to the polite, religious sub-culture are daily growing in number. If you will, the "Mothers-shielding-her-children's-eyes club." After reading this poem, I wonder of John Wilmot could have been elected president of this group. However, after acclimating myself to his frank symbolism, I found a great poem.

Part of the reason it jumped out at me so quickly and violently is that the heroic couplet seems to be written for easy reading; instead of concentrating on complex meter, it just kind of bounces along and lets you absorb themes and phrases with ease. It was definitely Wilmot's intention for his reader to approach this at breakneck speed, without holding back (Which also seems to be how the male subject approached sex, to the dismay of his partner) and shock themselves when they realized what they had jumped into. On that note, it seems as if the short, quick verses of the heroic couplet were appropriate for someone who obviously lacked the complexity of a great lover. Additionally, this scheme allows you to concentrate more on the vivid imagery Wilmot uses line to line.

Following the rise and fall of his ego is absolutely hilarious; early on he calls his penis a "all-dissolving thunderbolt," but (apparently quite) soon afterwards, in possibly the best couplet in this poem he uses a blazon of adjectives to describe his downfallen penis: "Trembling, confused, despairing, limber, dry/a wishing, weak, unmoving lump, I lie." His partner's cry of "Is there no more?" not terribly long after beginning the sexual encounter could not have helped. And no, calling "her very look a cunt" is neither polite nor a good excuse. The main character seems to be trying to rationalize his impotence and his reasoning is as perfectly simple as his performance with his partner, both of which match the poem's simple heroic couplet structure.

Other images such as "My dead cinder" and "...shrunk up and sapless like a withered flower" make it completely evident how disappointed the main character is with the boys downstairs (not directly faulting himself) but at some points he seems to be in denial, telling himself that he's "tingled every" vagina he's come in contact with before. It is somewhat ironic in that he seems to actually have feelings for her. He calls his former sexual encounters whores and wishes his current partner "10'000 abler pricks" to make up for his disappointing performance. The heroic couplet gives you no excuse to not completely notice this amazing imagery. Wilmot writes from the perspective of an unimpressive person; if you can imagine someone speaking in nursery rhyme, it's easy to imagine him being bad in bed. The structure is so basic, it causes absolutely none of the reader's attention to follow the meter, allowing them to pay complete attention to the line-by-line writing. Had this been written in a more complex meter, some of the reader's analysis would have been absorbed by that structure, and I think Wilmot wanted to avoid that.

Masterful job. Of writing that is. Not of... well you get the picture.

The Disabled Debauchee is a perfect characterization of the wit and style that so many strived toward during this era and easily shows why the Earl of Rochester's work was so respected. This poem is phenomenal. Perhaps the psychological process of picturing a face when reading a work (I imagine Johnny Depp's character in the Libertine writing this) helps me indentify more with the writer, but even without that bias I have a hard time thinking of a poem I've enjoyed more. Interestingly, it is written somewhat in the style of Dryden's Mack Fledcknoe as it wittily creates a type of surreal world where a typically undesirable characteristic is admired. The difference is that while Dryden obviously disdains dullness, we are led to believe that Wilmot considers debauchery not only a good trait, but something to be strived for.

As for the structure, I think the title itself lends a great deal of depth to the body and overall message of the work. When the word "disabled" is used to describe someone, it typically refers to a war veteran or (somewhat less often) an employee. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any other situation where the word is used in this context. But an even more interesting portion of the title is the next word: "Debauchee." Wilmot states debauchery as his primary occupation as opposed to calling himself a "Debaucherous Man" or something along those lines. Not only does this indicate that he is proudly and intentionally debaucherous, it makes the comparison to a war veteran more evident.

The poem is overflowed by comparisons of a "Debauchee" to a naval commander and Wilmot floods the line-by-line writing with nautical terms like - When fleets of glasses sail about the [table]. He makes a gradual transition from nautical terms to a more direct sexual tone as the poem progresses, and eventually it becomes very straightforward as to what he is speaking of. The thing that pervades the entire poem and, in my mind, makes it so phenomenal is that Wilmot's tone seamlessly shifts back and forth (whether he is speaking from the perspective of a former playboy or naval officer) and applies perfectly to both perspectives.

Never is this more evident than in lines 21-22. Nor shall the sight of honorable scars/Which my too forward valor did procure. He even refers to his scars as honorable; he considers himself a grizzled veteran of drinking and bed-hopping! In conclusion, he states that Sheltered in impotence, I urge you to blows, saying that he wants to vicariously live through the "next generation." Wilmot seems to say that after his long and accomplished life of debauchery, his only regret is that he can no longer lead the charge, having to settle instead for sitting in the background and watching all the fun from his bed. Did Wilmot truly convert to Christianity following his sickness? Did he actually regret his former ways? Who cares? This is an astounding poem and despite Wilmot's questionable sense of ethics, the literary community is better off with this work.

One segment of Paradise Lost that Milton uses a complex set up in to is Sin's harsh insult of Satan in 688-704 in combination with the preceding description of Satan. On lines 632 and 635, Satan is described as taking "solitary flight" but also "vaulting high" and soaring across the expanse, which is twofold in its imagery, saying that Satan, though powerful and convincing, is often completely alone. This is hammered home when Satan encounters Sin, portrayed here as Scylla, a mythical Greek monster, who had apparently been in hell along. Milton introduces Sin as "a goblin full of wrath" giving us a clear picture of her physical presence as well as what we can expect her to say in the following monologue. Unsuprisingly, Sin absolutely tears into Satan and calls him; "The traitor angel who first broke peace in heaven," and also blames him for the downfall of his followers, his third of the angels of heaven. Then on line 701, Sin tells Satan basically to get out of my hell, "Lest I chase you with a whip of scorpions." Forceful words against the being recognized by most as ruler of hell.

Sin, however, makes the statement the she was in Hell first, also claiming to be the sole ruler, implying that Satan is not the ruler of hell, merely an exiled dignitary from another realm. First off, this is logical because Satan began his existence in heaven whereas the force of Sin was obviously in no part an accepted member of heaven. Also, although Satan was the angel who first caused a fall of any sort, what force acted upon him to rebel against God? Sin. Just like Adam and Eve rebelled, but were being acted upon by Satan (and Sin) the chain of responsibility does not necessarily begin and end with the being who commited it. Satan in all his splendor and glory can not match evil with Sin, perhaps adding the final insult to injury, as Satan realizes that even in Hell, he can not rule unopposed.

After reading a classmate's post, I was struck with the epiphany that Milton's genius is not necessarily through use of his own decriptions, but the use of characters that have already been described. Moloch, Chemos, Thammuz, Osiris, Isis, and Orus just to name a few, were all gods of the polytheistic nations written about in the Old Testament of the Bible. By visualizing statues or paintings of these pagan gods or even associating their voices and demeanors with what has been written about them in literature, we are able to make a complete picture of who hell's minion's were: Large, powerful figures who one would be suprised to see lying in defeat.

Although the descriptions of these characters could be construed as flattering, that imagery does not lend itself to sympathizing with the fallen gods (although with the quality of the speeches given in hell, it's easy to see how they could have been coersed into rebelling against their own desires) but rather, I felt that such powerful beings should have known better than to fight an unwinnable battle. It seems as if God punishes these lesser deities on a case-by-case basis, in Paradise Lost they have been deposed to hell, but in the Bible they are treated with lesser punishments (the plagues and subsequent drowning of the Egyptian Army [Exodus:14] or the embarrasment and then slaughter of the prophets of Baal [1 Kings:18]) that seem to be brought upon the individual gods for their disobedience to god on Earth.

It seems as if Milton is trying to make a direct statement. Just like us, he seems to imply, these gods had free will, and when they messed up they were punished just as the Bible claims man has been and will continue to be. If this is taken as a direct religious text, would it comfort us to know that we are higher in God's favor than former angels or would it scare us to know that not only has God sent one of his three lietenants and a squadron of former trusted angels to hell, but now they're out to seduce us into suffering their fate?

Just don't expect me to vomit sunshine about the Libertine

Allow me to be frank at the commencement. You will not like me. The gentlemen will be envious and the ladies will be repelled. You will not like [this blog post] now and you will like [it] a good deal less as we go on.

So much meaning was twisted into this monologue and Wilmot built so much anticipation that I was disappointed to have to struggle so much to expose any kind of literary significance in the Libertine. However, one of the few themes I did manage to absorb fairly well was Charles's realization of the importance of having a writer as great as Wilmot on your side.

"Elizabeth had her Shakespeare. You could be mine." This quote specifically makes it seem as if Charles wanted to be immortalized in lore (later, he even assigns Wilmot the task of composing a tribute to his reign) and to an extent he did, but it seems as if even more, he wanted Wilmot to use his stunning talent to ameliorate his 'public rating,' to use a more modern political term, and also improve the public perception of England's impoverished, filthy state. While it seems ridiculous on the surface to think that a nation's ruler would believe a writer could help him that much, we must believe that, as king, Charles was very well educated and could very easily have been moved to think a certain way by the great writers of the day that he had spent his life reading. Why couldn't he employ a writer or writers from within his grand domain to make his subjects feel the way he wanted them to? Why couldn't he find a writer of extraordinary talent and use him as a super-powered propaganda machine?

Well... he found the writer. But like a two-edged sword, Wilmot's genius came with a near perfect understanding of what his king intended to use him as and that understanding combined with his childish 'need' to speak his mind caused drama to say the least. Any child who has asked a parent why an unreasonable request must be completed only to be told: "You'll do it because I'm your Mom/Dad, and I said so" understands the level of frustration Wilmot had achieved. And as most of us smart, frustrated kids do, Wilmot found sometimes underhanded, sometimes passive aggressive, never blatant, but always effective ways to show his annoyance. Whether it was reading a sexually explicit poem about Charles' wife, or belittling his reign in front of the French ambassador with his play, Wilmot consistently found a way to embarrass the king and vent through the vulgar writing he enjoyed so greatly. He continually found ways to show King Charles that he was no tool and could not be controlled.

The irony is that in the end, when Wilmot does decide to use his powers in the English language to help Charles, the king assumes that he is merely fulfilling his civic duty as subject to lord and has finally succumbed to authority. When he voices this, Wilmot turns around, stares him down and (basically) makes the point with obvious disdain in his voice that Charles is an idiot. For the first time Charles doesn't seem put off by the insult though. He got what he wanted; his tool yielded a harvest. He's like a child who is being scolded for stealing candy but is too satisfied by the taste of the candy to care.

And then I had to re-evaluate who was the child in this relationship.

In my readings of L'Allegro and Il Penseroso, I had a very strong sense that two competing factions were trying to win, for themselves, the title of true happiness. Milton's structure seems very similar to the structure of a political campaign between two candidates, belittling one another (Lines 2 of each identifies the central theme of the opponent's and the rest of the beginning 10 lines goes to discount it) while simultaneously striving to improve their own image in the eye of the voters (readers). You could also make the argument that we have an old man and a teenager arguing about what is beautiful, or perhaps even the sister who's on the cheerleading squad and cries when she sees cute puppies arguing with the unattractive A+ drama club member who reads books on ignoring boys.

The cavalier poets would agree that L'Allegro, arguing for the carefree lifestyle (Straight mine eye hath caught new pleasures/whilst the landscape round it measures) is the best way to pursue joy even if such joysare not immediately evident. Milton throws in an argument of pathos, (The sport that wrinkled care derides - Ln 31) labeling those who would not agree with this assessment as stodgy old naysayers. Furthering the identification with physical beauty, he personifies Mirth through the goddess Venus (line 14). Venus is considered the most beautiful of all the gods and many times inspires males, both mortal and immortal to fall deeply in love with her (Line 122 reinforces this characterization of L'Allegro, outside of the Venus comparison). She, however, is additionally considered the representation of impure love, and one of her names, Venus Obsequens, was actually the deity of women caught in adulterous relationships. It was also Venus's beauty that the poet Homer ultimately blamed the Trojan war on (Paris and the Golden Apple). However, L'Allegro seems to say that you should look beyond these cons and make (Quips and Cranks and waton smiles - Ln 27) forgetting the cons. He also spends a huge portion of the poem speaking of the joy of naturally beautiful landscapes. L'allegro claims that if you can find beauty in simplicity and nature, and appreciate it, you will always be joyous; the American Beauty conceptualization of happiness.

Il Penseroso, argues the opposing platform, that happiness should stem from a far deeper emotional process. He argues that accomplishments (That in trim gardens takes his pleasure - Ln 50) and emotional appeals (Ln 108) should be the source of happiness. As is the case in L'Allegro, Il Penseroso uses a Roman goddess (Vesta) as a personification of its form of happiness. She is a chaste goddess who turned down a marriage offer from Apollo to preserve here virginity and is recognized as the protector of the family (quite opposed to the Venus Obsequens persona). However, Vesta is rarely (if ever) written about in plays, never seems to be portrayed as beautiful in any sense and is not considered an important god in Roman mythology. Venus on the other hand, dominates plays, fables and poems. Her moral character seems to be the source of beauty and thus happiness according to Milton here. In line 151 and 161 he speaks to the seemingly magical appeal of music on the senses and how it stirs the soul. Basically, in Il Penseroso, milton argues that you need more than a simple fantasy-world-bunnies-jumping-through-fields view of happiness. You need to pursue concepts linked to morality and accomplishment to obtain the sense of self-respect prerequisite to true happiness. When has a comedy won Best Picture of the Year? It's always a drama, something that stirs our emotions beyond simple grins and chuckles.

If an old man an a young boy were somehow able to have a deep conversation about the nature of happiness, these would be the lines they'd follow. And as a recent teenager myself, I think I'd have to vote for Venus over Vesta. Get back to me in 60 years.

Sonnet 147: This works better if you sing it with the originally pronouns, but...

She drives Will crazy! Oh Oooooh!
Like no one else.
She drives Will crazy! Oh Oooooh
But he can't give her himself.


There doesn't really seem to be any message here other than the standard Shakespeaean sonnet theme of our hero, the author, trying to persevere in love against all logical thought, this time possibly going mad in the process. His lust for this girl is feeding his fever (The old addage about starving a cold would seem to oppose his rationale here) and he is ignoring all the intelligent "perscriptions" that could cure him of this love (or insane infatuation). He also mentions being past cure, which could be read either as him just being super-duper-high-school-girl-in-love, or that his unsuccesful pursuit of this girl as weakened his mental state to the point where he is too damaged to return to his previous life unaltered. The second interpretation seems to be confirmed by the very end of the poem which would have us believe that the woman in question has a malevolent agenda. Usually, an ending line like this means the girl turned the guy down.

This primary difference is this sonnet as opposed to the others is in these final two lines which usually only go to reaffirm his love for her, but here seem quite bitter and biting. Perhaps he is still in love, but realizes that she is bad. Perhaps he is bemoaning the fact that she rejected him despite all these painstaking efforts he went through to love her. Or perhaps, Shakespeare used his masterful technique in the first 12 lines to construct the illusion that he loves a girl who he abhors. Following that theory, the whole sonnet was written to give you that uber-amplified flashbulb moment in line 13 when you realize what Shakespeare's true feelings are.

Holy Sonnet 5:

Moving from Shakespeare's sometimes love-infatuated, sometimes homoerotic, and sometimes just plain cocky sonnets to these reverent, religious works almost made me want to change into a nicer shirt and improve my posture.

In Sonnet 5, Donne seems to plea with God to cleanse him, with a "holy fire" of sorts, so that he can be born again in a religious sense and see his sin-marred world in a new light. He wants to see "new spheres and new lands" that his sinner's eyes were unable to see before. He admits that sin has taken both parts of his world, and that both parts must die; referring to his physical body and his soul. He seems to be willing to give up his physical body to death when his time comes but also realizes that his soul should die also, deserving the burning fires of hell in retribution for his ghastly sins. He ends by pleading with God to burn him with cleansing fires of zeal, concluding a humble, well-written plea for salvation.

Another interpretation here is that Donne literally wants to bring on the Apoclaypse. Now sure, had the Apocalypse occurred during his writing of this poem, no one have known that he had been the one to request God's termination of the Earth. And thankfully, it seems as if God had ideas other than Donne's. In the first two lines he makes an illusion to the belief that the human form is a smaller version of the cosmos, afterwards saying both must die. Sure, humans will die, but for the Earth to "die," wouldn't Donne have to be referring to an Apocalypse? It seems as if he's genuinely abhorred with the state of affairs on Earth and just wants to see it washed away, mentioning that he could flood Earth with his tears of sorrow, making good use of the double-entendre with regard to the Biblical flood story. So basically, it trumpets started sounding and angels came down from Heaven and started burning stuff, he'd be the guy in the front row cheering them on.

Sonnet 106 - Catch 22

Early in the poem he seems to feel as if the Pertrarchan love poems of the past, which extensively detailed all the breathtaking features of their subjects must have been speaking of his love. This aura of perfection could only be accomplished by her, as if she was in fact literally one of a kind when it came to beauty. But sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Basically, Shakespeare is trying to say that the English language is unable to portray the beauty exuded by the subject of this poem, and that to truly comprehend how gorgeous she is, you have to see her. You can't do her the injustice of describing her in mere words. In doing so, he takes a knock at some poets of the past, saying that to truly give your audience a sense that someone is perfect, you have to manipulate your words to place that person above the highest level of beauty that you can achieve through your own writing. Shakespeare seems to be mock ing earlier Petrarchan poets for well... "over-writing."

Hence the Catch-22: In this poem, Shakespeare says that to truly be a great writer, sometimes you can (or should) not write. However, writing sonnets like this one is what helped make Shakespeare arguably the greatest writer in human history. The moral? It's nice to be able to sign your work: "William Shakespeare."