Talk:Sonnet 116

"Links"
All links from www.shakespeare-online.com are broken!

Misc.
Tone and Meaning

From the article it seems no one has considered the tone of the sonnet given the strict iambic meter that the poem is written in (as I understand it, strict meter was an absolute requirement of poems at that time). The first line should read "let ME not TO the MARriage of TRUE minds." When you read it with proper meter it becomes clear this is one side of a bitter disagreement. It's not all just pretty poetic language, and this fits with the theme of the other 'fair youth' poems. To me this poem is clearly about unrequited love, but many people seem to misread it with the misunderstanding that it's about true love.

Wonderful... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.202.242 (talk) 02:40, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

"Shakespeare’s “Sonnet 116” is wonderful poem..."

I gagged at that without reading any further. "Wonderful"? It didn't even have an "a" in there. This "commentary" section is very unencyclopedic. It feels as though some high school student just copy-pasted their night's homework in there. Can we get a clean-up on this please? -- Thesis4Eva cont.   talk  08:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, there is little in the commentary section of interest, need to be rewritten in a more formal style, and not simply lifted off of another site

Yeah, and in line 12 of the poem, the word "beats" was typed instead of "bears." That needs to be fixed.

'''Problems, problems. . .'''

I feel certain that my edits will not stand, but the previous interpretation was too shallow to let stand, either. The previous version saw this poem as being solely about romantic love, and I see something deeper. Unfortunately, I am not sufficiently versed in the secondary literature to be able to document any claims. Anyone??Landrumkelly 16:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an "In Popular Culture" section for this page; but in about the summer of 2000, I heard this sonnet recited on Garrison Keillor's radio show, A Prairie Home Companion. I don't know the number/name of this particular show. (He was talking about "two teenage girls".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.252.64.70 (talk) 21:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Analysis of Lines Seven and Eight

In reference to lines seven and eight which state: "Line eight specifically has come in for varied analysis by a number of commentators. The worth gleaned from height has been seen by some as a reference to the elevation of the star used in navigation. An alternative explanation is that displacement of the ship may be used by some to gauge the value of the cargo aboard. The theme of sailing and ships is prevalent here, so the displacement of a ship to detail its worth is more likely than a star's height."

-I tend to disagree with the suggestion that the displacement of the aforementioned ship (bark) in Sonnet 116 is in reference to the 'unknown worth' of the subsequent line. Rather, I believe the 'star' is being referenced and for the following simple reason. If it were indeed a ship whose worth unknown, although his height be taken, would not the pronoun used to describe the ship (bark) be a feminine pronoun and not a masculine pronoun? Does anyone have any insight into this matter? I would be curious to know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.13.136 (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add something which I found striking in this article: The wikipedia article suggests that "Let me not to the marriage of true minds/Admit impediments" alludes to the idea that the speaker does not want to stay in the way. I would suggest that this is a wrong claim since the speaker only says that he does not allow, admit, or want to let impediments - meaning obstacles - let interfere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.116.151.174 (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The reference by Doebler to 'the compass' clearly refers to what is correctly called a pair of compasses (the geometrical device). This object may be an association of the word as used here, but nevertheless 'compass' here clearly has the primary meaning of 'reach' or 'scope', from 'that which is encompassed'. Moreover, in view of the nautical motif of 'tempests', 'wandering bark', and perhaps 'ever-fixed mark', the association with the navigational compass is at least as strong. If there is an authority to back up these interpretation, something to this effect needs to go in here. (Obviously I can't just add it myself without a reference to an authority, but only referring to Doebler seems misleading to me.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dayvey (talk • contribs) 19:20, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is being addressed?
I make no claim to be an expert, but, nevertheless, I would hope that an alternative viewpoint such as is found at http://www.shakespeares-sonnets.com/sonnet/116 would at least be mentioned. Here's part of that viewpoint:

"In addition, despite the idealism, there is an undercurrent of subversion which permeates all. It is ironic that a poem as famous as this should be seized on by the establishment as a declaration of their view of what love should be. Does the establishment view take account of the fact that this is a love poem written by a man to another man, and that the one impediment to their marriage is precisely that, for no church of the time, or scarcely even today, permits a man to marry a man?"--Wikifan2744 (talk) 07:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Quatrian 2
I want to propose that the "Quatrain 2" section be cleaned up. For one thing, there are a number of statements about the meaning of the poem without any cited sources. But more importantly, I propose that we remove or substantially rewrite the following current edit: "This much astronomy Shakespeare seems to understand. Now we know its a yellow super-giant cepheid variable 2000 times brighter than the Sun, 433 light years away. Precession of the equinoxes means it will no longer be the closest bright star to our pole by the end of the 21st century. It's brightness varies by 4% in a four day cycle, scheduled to go supernova in 50 million years. Science has advanced but love still rules."

For one thing, most of this seems irrelevant to the meaning of the poem. When a poet writes a metaphor about a star, it is not useful or necessary for the article to discuss (or, in this case, mention out of context) all of the random scientific facts about that star, particularly those that were not even known when the poet was alive (or what current astrophysicists believe will happen to that star in 50 million years!). The final statement "science has advanced but love still rules" is vague and has a casual writing style that seems inappropriate for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zither P. Oxblood (talk • contribs) 16:09, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have thus removed that entire paragraph. --Xover (talk) 16:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)