Love is Not Love - In Shakespeare's Sonnet 18, Anyway

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

Sonnets 18 and 116 are two of Shakespeare's most quotable love poems. If you're a fan of weddings, rose-petal-filled baths, or Kate Winslet in Sense and Sensibility, you'll probably recognize the lines "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" and "Love is not love / Which alters when it alteration finds." The problem with quotes, however, is that they lack context. Let's do a quick line-by-line overview of Sonnets 116 and 18. You might be surprised to find that one of these so-called "love" poems is very much not like the other.

Sonnet 116

Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments.

This is Shakespeare's equivalent of saying "Mum's the word" to the ol' "Speak now or forever hold your peace" bit of the marriage ceremony. In fact, Shakespeare won't even admit the word "impediments" to the line that talks about marriage. Love: 1; Impediments: 0.

...Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:

In other words, he's not one for pulling any of this "you've changed" crap.

O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;

Psh, tempests.

It is the star to every wand'ring bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.

The star to every wand'ring bark? That'd have to be the North Star, which never appears to move from its place in the Northern Hemisphere. The reason its "worth's unknown" is because Europeans didn't know a whole heck of a lot about stars back in Shakespeare's day, what with still being bitter about the Earth's roundness and all.

Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:

Love: 2; Rosy Lips and Cheeks: 0. On a side note, remember that this is Shakespeare, meaning that anything a 12-year old could possibly construe as dirty probably is. Feel free to laugh, therefore, at the image of Old Father Time's "bending" sickle.

Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.

Love: 3; Edge of Doom: big ol' goose egg. If love could speak, it'd be saying "booya" right about now.

If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.

Did Shakespeare just take an oath upon his own poetry? Them's fightin' words. If you're not sure why, it'll all make sense when we get to Sonnet 18.

Like Sonnet 116, Sonnet 18 is ranked high up there on Sappy Poetry lists... usually by people who go for explicit rather than implicit meaning. If you've ever considered including a reading of Sonnet 18 at your anniversary party, the last three or so lines will probably change your mind. (If you're a really careful reader, the first two will do the trick.) Let's start from the top.

Sonnet 18

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Aww, how sweet! We think... To be sure, let's read it again - aloud. Remember to stress every second syllable, like so:

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:

Ah hah! Notice how "I" is emphasized but "thee" and "thou" aren't? Sneaky. Let's continue.

Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:

Can't argue with that.

Sometime too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course untrimm'd;

Yeah yeah, we get it - everything in nature fades. Go back to that "thou" person already.

But thy eternal summer shall not fade,

Woohoo! And the "thy" is emphasized! We knew Shakespeare would come around eventually!

Nor lose possession of that fair thou ow'st,

We like where this is going.

Nor shall death brag thou wander'st in his shade,

Good, good. Keep it coming!

When in eternal lines to time thou grow'st;

Uh oh, we've got ourselves a conditional. So let's get this straight: all that not fading, getting ugly, or dying business depends on growing in some eternal lines to time? What does that even mean? And please don't tell us it has anything to do with the fact that Sonnets 1-17 are also known as the "procreation sonnets." If Shakespeare's saying that the best way to bottle up all them good looks is by creating genetic blood lines, we're going to go ahead and turn down that second date.

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,

Another conditional?!? Okay, okay: "so long as men can breathe, or eyes can see" is actually a decent amount of time, so we'll let it slide.

So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

At last! - an emphasized "thee"! But hold the phone: what's giving thee life? Some unnamed "this"?? Is Shakespeare referring back to those eternal lines? To give him a little credit, he probably knows enough about grammar to use the pronoun "these" when talking about something plural. Dare we ask... if "this" is the sonnet itself? Might Shakespeare be suggesting that being featured in his work immortalizes you? Are those eternal lines the lines of the sonnet itself? Is the final thee only emphasized because it's the end result of Shakespeare's awesome, immortalizing poetry skills?

Probably. After all, being Shakespeare is like being an Elizabethan rockstar: you can bully the roadies, sleep with the groupies, trash the hotel rooms, and still be the world's darling. And let's face it: if you went down in history as The Bard, you'd probably swear by your own poetry too.

Shmoop is an online study guide for Shakespeare, Sonnet 116 and many more. Its content is written by Ph.D. and Masters students from top universities, like Stanford, Berkeley, Harvard, and Yale who have also taught at the high school and college levels. Teachers and students should feel confident to cite Shmoop.

Golden Spotted Deer - Based On An Episode In The Epic Ramayana

AppId is over the quota
AppId is over the quota

The great philosopher Socrates taught his disciples, never to accept anything without questioning. The question why has to be answered truthfully without flinching and requires great moral courage and indomitable spirit of adventure to pursue matters to a logical conclusion, which may be unpalatable and invite violent reaction from uninformed public, especially if religion is involved. May He grant me the toughness! I seek sincere apology, in advance. The theme involves Sita, whom I respect most, Ram, the maryada purushottam, venerated all over India and Lakshman, the faithful brother, who sacrificed his family life, to protect his brother and sister-in-law, in their long and tortuous journey through the subcontinent, disregarding the threat from wild animals and asuras who dominated the wilderness. Let us be extremely cautious!

All went well, until the fourteenth year of their picnic-like excursion, enjoying the splendor of virgin forests and emerald green hills. Then tragedy struck as in a Hollywood film.

A lovely golden deer appeared near the cottage, where the princely trio were camping. Its beauty and innocent eyes captivated the Princess. She just wanted to have it! They told her that it was no ordinary animal; it was some evil being, with ulterior motives, sent to harm them.They had already incurred the wrath of Shoorpanaka (in the South it is Surpanakha) and killed her brothers who attacked them. They were expecting trouble.

But Sita won't hear. She wanted the golden deer. Ultimately, her husband yielded. Entrusting the safety of his spouse to his faithful brother, Ram went after the animal.

Oh help me Lakshman: I am in immediate danger-When Sita heard these cries, she urged Lakshman to go and help Ram. On being told that Ram is capable of defending himself and that this is a trick of the evil spirit that came in the guise of the animal, Sita was infuriated, became wild, accusing Lakshman of entertaining dirty motives to posses her after Ram fell dead. That was the last straw! Lakshman left instantly, leaving Sita undefended. In comes a sanyasi (a hermit) asking for alms. Every Hindu respects and welcomes such people. Unsuspecting Sita comes out of the cottage and is kidnapped by Ravana, in order to avenge the ill-treatment of his sister Shoorpanaka. The seed is sown for the epic Ram vs. Ravana war.

In this single episode, the poet Valmiki exhibits his superlative qualities with regard to plot, characterization and human psychology! We are concerned with certain fundamental questions arising out of the whole sequence of events.

1) The first question is: why Sita behaved like a nine year old girl crying for a Barbie doll?

Sita is no ordinary woman. She forsook the pleasures of life in the palace and went along with her husband with bare clothes into the forest. This shows her high moral standard and extreme devotion to her beloved husband. During their sojourn through the forest, they must have come across hundreds of deer and fondled them. Therefore, the sight of the golden deer should not have excited her. When told that it is no ordinary deer but some evil spirit masquerading as deer with definite motives for revenge, Sita should have been convinced. In fact, any dutiful wife with some sense of responsibility would readily agree with her husband and forget the deer. Why did Sita of such high standard and integrity of character, fully devoted to her husband, insist on her demand for the pet?

2) As a responsible husband, Ram should have convinced his wife about the futility of seeking to capture the illusive deer. Why did he fail to do this? When he was fully convinced that the deer is a mirage, he should have refused to budge. Why did he fail? He could have thrashed his wife for being so silly and adamant, why did he not do it?

3) When Lakshman left his wife and accompanied the princely couple, he had only one thing in his mind: protection of his beloved brother and sister- in- law. He should have clearly told Sita that Ram is quite safe and there is nothing to worry about. If he could not countenance the vulgar insinuations of Sita, he could have pretended to go but actually hidden himself in the nearby bush. Why did he not do this?

4) Ravan was a very powerful and valiant fighter. When his sister Soorpanaka was insulted and her breasts and nose cut off (did they have to do this to a woman?), he should have challenged the princes for a fight and not sneak into the hutment like a thief

and stolen Sita. His wife Mandodari had actually advised Ravan against this heinous crime. Did he entertain finer sentiments for the lovely princess and was only waiting for an excuse?

The Unpredictability Principle

Every human being is subject to unreasonable and mysterious reaction some time or other. It is difficult to quote instances from my own life.Most of the time I have been carried away as by a current, as if I have no will of my own. It is recently that I have started writing and feel a bit nervous. We were not badly off when my father broke off from our ancestral home and wandered from one place to another. When he, at last, built a house and settled down, He called him. Mother, a young widow and we four children, all under sixteen, were left in the lurch with practically no earnings. Why did he break away in the first instance? Napoleon Buonaparte was a great statesman. He has written a lot during his last days in prison in St.Helena Island. It is worth reading even today. Why did he want to conquer the world? Hitler could have remained unbeaten, had he not attacked the USSR. Why did Kamsa not put Vasudeva and Devaki in separate cells in jail?

Every human being carries an invisible burden, which I call the spiritual baggage, consisting of the things he has seen and experienced, which is stored in his computer called his brain. It works even when he sleeps. Poets and writers try to dissect it. Scientists are far from even guessing what goes on there. We always blame something or other without understanding anything. This baggage vitiates our judgment at critical moments.

I am a strong believer in Him. My reason tells me that He is everywhere.It is not necessary to go to a temple. But I enjoy the trip to any temple It is very soothing. My Christian friend may like, if it is a church A Malayalam Muslim poet has written a beautiful hymn in praise of Sree Guruvayoorappan (there is one temple of the deity -Krishna in Delhi) ending with the plea that, at least in the next janam, he may have the chance to have a darshan of the temple deity. (If I am empowered, I shall allow all devotees free access to the temple as in gurudwaras)

To return to Sita.

She will have to answer a number of inconvenient questions. Why did she not resist as soon as she realized that he was not a sanyasi? Ravan had a curse. If he touched a woman against her wishes, he would perish. Without touching her, how could he drag her into the helicopter? (Pushpaka viman).Why did she not jump out and commits suicide as any chaste school girl could do now? Why did she not go on fast unto death even as Medhaji would do now? Ultimately, she ended her life when a repentant Ram requested her to come back to Ayodhya from the forest where she was unceremoniously and sneakingly cast away, merely because some worthless washerwoman made some derogatory comments about her stay in Ravan's custody. Why did she not show the same spirit at that time?

Ram:

He never behaved like a gentleman. He hid himself and killed Bali when the latter was fighting Sugriv, his own brother. (What a curse on humanity! Brothers rarely remain friends- Ambani vs Ambani).When the dying Bali confronted him with the question: why did you kill me like a coward, Ram, instead of expressing sympathy for the dying hero (Bali was a remarkable fighter. He once humiliated Ravan by holding him with his tail and dipping Ravan again and again in the sea!) abused him right and left: "Who are you to question me? Do you know that I belong to the Ikshuki race? You are only a monkey. You illegally took away your brother's wife. You deserve to die". A gentleman ought to be more polite to a dying hero. Will George Bush use such words to a dying Bin Laden?