Talk:Sonnet 20

[Untitled]

In the "Sexuality" section, the sentence "This lends itself to the idea that either Shakespeare had no idea of the homoerotic undertones in this sonnet or he was completely aware of how it would read." seems rather ridiculous to include. Either Shakespeare knew how it read or didn't? Well, yeah, it's gotta be one of those two. What are the alternatives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.92.227.198 (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

He knew, it just like any attempt at acknowledging the old arguments meant to twist lines that are obviously homoerotic even in 16th century english to a 16th century audience, ever since Malone's First Folio trying to make Shakespeare into a bland representation of industrial era's morality. It's the same mentality that led to "Kismet, Hardy" even for a platonic kiss between friends. TL;DR no amount of whitewashing will ever be able to hide the fact that the moral culture of England under the later Hanovers was, ultimately, as an institution, so afraid of sex you only have to wonder how anyone besides the working class was having babies. A bunch of old geezers in Oxbridge still love these arguments. 69.159.140.240 (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Per Robert Crossman's "Making Love Out of Nothing At All":

"The presence of sexual double entendres in Shakespeare's plays is too massive ever to have been denied, though politer ages than his or ours have turned as blind an eye to it as they could and have bowdlerized what they couldn't ignore. The presence of bawdiness in the sonnets can seem in some ways even more distressing, since sonnets are highbrow literature that need not pander to "the base," and since sonnets are not spoken by dramatic characters but by the poet himself or at least by a fictional alter ego. But the fact that the sonnets too are sexual has long been conceded, not merely in the "dark lady" sonnets, where at least the eroticism can be attributed to the author's robust heterosexuality, but also in the first 126, addressed to the young man. Sonnet 20 is especially notorious in this regard because of the poet's insistence on calling attention to the young man's genitals: "Nature . . . pricked thee out for women's pleasure" (20:10, 13)."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk • contribs) 23:57, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

4th line semicolon?

On this page, the fourth line "With shifting change, as is false women's fashion:" ends in a colon. Elsewhere, it seems like this line ends with a semi-colon, which makes the poem read somewhat differently. Is there a reason a colon is used here? User:!jim^talk _contribs 05:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Odd omissions?

If only for the sake of readers whose first language is not English, shouldn't the article point out that the verb "prickt/prick'd" in line 13 puns on the noun "prick", then as now meaning 'penis'?--i.e., Nature has fastened a male organ onto him.

Moreover, the conveniently reproduced text of the 1609 quarto in line 7 has Hews set in italics with an initial capital, the usual marker in that period's texts for proper nouns. This strongly suggests a reference to a person, whether the Willie Hughes mentioned in the article or someone else. That modernized transcriptions lowercase the word, sometimes as here in quotation marks, baffles me.

GeorgeTSLC (talk) 01:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can speak to the transcription. I've unified all 154 Sonnet articles with what I believe to be the best overall text available (details at User:Phil wink/Sonnet Uniformity Act#Text). Any edition will have particular characteristics that are liked or disliked, but I think in this case consistency (and legality) is a virtue. Naturally, any original features that are lost, or any emendations not displayed, can be pointed out in the text, if germane. I do agree that the replacement of italics with quotes is a little stupid, but I'll point out that Pooler (my chosen edition) is far from alone in this practice at that time, and that (although of course not intended by Pooler) this actually serves a bit of a purpose in the digital age, since if this text passes through any process that removes or distorts its formatting, the emphasis will remain, whereas if it had been represented with italics, it might disappear. As for dick jokes, it's luck of the draw: if an editor realizes it's there, chooses to mention it, and (usually) has a reference, then it goes in. I encourage you to add a referenced statement about it. Phil wink (talk) 03:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)