Sure, it's a poem mocking love, but it's earnest

I agree with what the rest of the group has stated. "Sonnet 130" is an infamous sonnet mocking conventional love poems (esp. those of Petrarch). However, I think the key is this:

And yet, by heaven, I think my love as rare
As any she belied with false compare.

The rhyming couplet at the end was a new touch to the Petrarchan sonnet, rendering it into a new form -- the English/Shakespearean sonnet. Shakespeare often used the couplet at the end as a ~twist~ of sorts. In this couplet in particular, Shakespeare makes a point by stating that it's the flaws of his mistress that he loves; hence, he says "belied with false compare". To him, by using trite, over-wrought words (roses, etc.) to describe love, one is 'belying' the woman, and thus, misrepresenting her. By eschewing convention, Shakespeare is, interestingly, bestowing praise.

Shakespeare: A Realist

I do agree with the previous posts, but I wanted to note that although Shakespeare may have intended this to be a parody I do believe that there is some merit in this poem. Moreover, it is possible that Shakespeare is admitting to the fact that the woman he is in love with is anything but perfect and that he is accepting that fact. In my opinion, when poets attempt to compare features of their love with the most idealistic items then they are merely assimilating and conforming to previous love poems--and simultaneously bastardizing the entire concept. On the contrary this sonnet in my opinion has a lot more value that the reader can actually relate to. In general love poems seem to remove the audience considering not too many people date women with rosy cheeks and breath like perfume. The overarching tone and mood in this sonnet is one of realism; Shakespeare is perfectly content with having this imperfect woman. Like Steve said this might be slightly hypocritical, but maybe we should cut Shakespeare some slack--maybe he has finally learned his lesson about writing love sonnets.

Less Than Perfect

I think this poem is, more than anything, a parody of other love poems. This would explain why Shakespeare takes pretty things such as the sun, snow, roses, perfume, etc while at the same time choosing a few of his "loved one's" physical features and saying "oh wait, you are not like this." Granted, in the end he added the cliche couplet that basically says that in spite of imperfections, his love is true, blah blah. However, when put into perspective, he is, in a way, pointing out how inferior and/or imperfect the woman that he is describing really is. It is interesting because when we think of a love poem, we don't think of the writer telling his love interest that music is more pleasing than the sound of her voice. I guess this could play into how women were always perceived as less than perfect, because that is basically what he is saying -- "here is this beautiful thing and while you are ALMOST that beautiful, you are not quite there yet."

Another interesting thing is how this poem focuses on the physical rather than the internal -- the "personality." It kind of makes me go back to Mulvey's article about women being there for visual pleasure (which was also mentioned in the article for this week). In addition to the particular attention given to the physical body, Shakespeare is also, in a sense, fragmenting the female body... just as Lavinia was fragmented in the play and how more attention was given to what she lacked rather than what she had to offer.

Shakespeare was such a baller.

Reading this, it's like meta romance. He's just deconstructing all fo the classic tropes of love poetry and basically saying that they were lies. This whole concept of what he calls "false compare" is one fo the more entertaining parts of the sonnet, calling out hsi contemporaries and forebears as hypocrites. The last two lines really twist the knife in the heart of most sonnets, with Shakespeare telling everyone who buys into these hyperbola (wasn't sure about the plural there) that your lover doesn't need eyes like the sun, or rosy cheeks in order for your love to be endless. Call me glib, but that's the way that I see it.
I also think it's funny that this is all coming from a writer who's known throughout the world for comparing his love to a summer's day. It seems almost as if he's calling himself a hypocrite. If we think of that being true, it makes Shakespeare much more self-dericating than I think he's given credit for being, and thus he is a baller.

Oops, two typos

There are two typos in my previous class blog post: *outsiders and *simply.

Should Aaron fit in?

Camille and Libby are absolutely correct in their comments that Aaron does not fit in with his unnatural cruelty. Camille also mentions the discordance with Aaron's appearance and role within the play--he shows up in sporadic intervals that hardly make coherent sense. Yet, I do not think that Shakespeare necessarily wants or intends Aaron to fit in. He is the outside, the Moor, who is fighting the injustice of inequality. Moreover, we discussed in class that Aaron is evil because, well, just because he is evil. He is the "bad guy" pure and simple, with evil intentions because he is the play's dramatic villain. This monologue by him, illustrating the extent of his wrongdoing and the pleasure he takes in violence, serves simple as a "shock factor" that provokes horror in the audience as a dramatic element.

Thus, Shakespeare hardly even creates a need to explain the motivation for Aaron's evil. He appears almost like a Devil-incarnate, with a given label that brings the reader to fear, loathe, and contempt him. He himself states that there is not a single crime in the play that he has not had a hand in. Aaron hence emerges as an ultimate villain--an evil character who, by definition, does not and need not fit in, serving only to propel the negative action and motivations in the play.

Why would Aaron fit in?

Libby's title brings up a good point. Aaron does not fit in and I think that is the point of his actions throughout the play. In the first act there is no mention of him except that he comes in with Tamora. He has his first lines in Act 2. If there was a place for him he would have some sort of active role in the drama during the 1st act. So the fact that he has this monologue in the 5th act where he shows no remorse or empathy for his wrong doings comes to no surprise for me. He has no reason to like Rome or its citizens. Based on the scheming in the play one can assume that he feels as if he has been neglected or outcasted. If that is the case then his devious behavior is his way of making himself acknowledged and letting Rome know that he does not fit in their community. Misery loves company. I believe that Aaron was miserable and decided to make everyone else miserable in some way, shape or form.

How does Aaron fit in?

Revenge seems to overshadow Regret in Titus Andronicus and the other plays we have been reading, however Aaron does not even have a compelling motivation such as Revenge. Not only does he not show any feelings of remorse for what he has done, his only disappointment comes from his inability to further wreak havoc amongst the people in Rome. Aaron's character stands out as unnaturally cruel even in comparison to the selfish murderers and rapists. In this passage the reader sees Aaron invent new ways to manifest his evil. Does Shakespeare intends for Aaron to be the epitome of human sinfulness? Does his race relate to the nature of his character? Judging by the way the text describes his child as being evil because of the son's skin color, I would be willing to apply the same circumstance to Aaron. The easy way to explain why Aaron's character seems so unmitigatedly cruel is to attribute his nature to his skin color, but I don't feel inclined to view this characterization as an overtly racial decision on the part of the writer. Aaron is one of the only characters who prospers in the end of the play, I think he symbolizes evil itself and lives to show that life is cruel and unforgiving. Aaron lives because there is not justice in the world, and injustice has been the prominent theme within this play.

Understandable

I have asked the same question of other situations in life. It seems that some places were created for bad things to happen. But, then I remember that people make their own choices. It is not dependent on nature. Although, I can understand why Marcus would feel the way that he does and say those lines as it relates to what happened to his niece.

All The World's A Stage

I found these lines particularly interesting when I thought about them in relation to Mulvey's article. They bring to mind the idea that all of our struggles, all of our pain as humans have been carefully crafted for the delight and amusement of the gods. Especially in the context of a play, when the people hearing the lines are the watchers, I find the idea extremely meta. It is the idea that the watchers are also the watched. The idea that no matter how much we observe others, and enjoy their experiences vicariously, there is always another unaccounted for group. There is always another watcher. There is always someone watching us, enjoying our experiences quietly from the audience. We are all constantly the performers at the same time we are the peanut gallery. I also find the idea as a whole incredibly sad. It makes one feel that all of one's experiences, all of one's pains, are shallow in some way. They have all been fabricated by some unseen playwright trying to delight and titillate an audience. 

Shattered World View?

It is difficult weighing the importance of these lines to the play as a whole. Much of the violence does seem senseless. When Marcus questions whether the hunting grounds, similar to the "gloomy woods" in Ovid's Metamorphoses, have been made "by nature...for murders and rapes," he attests to how difficult it is to find reasons for all the horrific things that have already happened. As Marcus seeks reasons, he questions whether the Gods revel in such horrors and have shaped this world to facilitate such violence. I feel like these lines would have created a stir in the time in which the play was performed. Marcus's words call into question the Christian idea of a benevolent creator and the rewarding of moral behavior in the afterlife. Marcus seeks answers just the like reader does, offering an answer that for a Renaissance audience, would have made the violence even more foreign and strange.

Titus Never-resting

Perhaps just to differ from everyone else, I will take a poetic interpretation of this delivery by Titus. Titus Andronicus knows only a few things: Justice, Honor, and Dignity. When he sees Lavinia and himself in such a pitiful situation he resorts to an undying desire to avenge such wrongs. Perhaps it is madness, but one could say the same about Hamlet. The parallels are there, and Titus is looking for a way to sort through all of the politics and corruption to find justice for his family and himself. In the end, I agree with all of the prior points, that Titus is a neglectful father, that he is partly crazed, and the symbolism of speaking for someone particularly a woman. I'd like to think that Shakespeare is using this to set up the dramatic end and this quote specifically symbolizes Titus' conviction in pursuing the matter to the end. This desperation is a sign of his permanent bond to Rome and its principles. With Titus the hope of Rome rests. And only Rome can avenge Lavinia.

Crazed With Grief!

I actually don't think Titus is really trying to interpret Lavinia's meanings at all, or at least is not really successful. Although long, passionate monologues are common in plays, I saw his (Titus') speeches as signs of madness. Even his brother Marcus tells him he's going a little far in what he's saying:

"Fie, brother, fie! teach her not thus to lay
Such violent hands upon her tender life" (3.2.21-2).

Though his intentions may be good and we're obviously supposed to sympathize with Titus for all the bad things that have happened to him and his family, I think at this point he seems insane, and is not really rationally trying to understand Lavinia, so much as just saying lots of random things as a result of his passion.

Good Warrior Doesn't Mean Good Father

I completely agree with Jocelyn about Lavinia being misinterpreted. I got the feeling throughout reading this act that when Titus was saying he was able to interpret what Lavinia was saying through her actions, he was wrong. I felt like he was just making something up to make himself feel better about what happened to her and to make himself look like a better dad. I mean it isn't very hard to tell someone is upset and unhappy when they have been raped, had their hands and tongue cut off, and cry all the time. I think this plays upon the fact that Titus isn't that good of a father; he is a good warrior. He has lost 20 sons in fighting, he ends up killing one of his sons, his daughter gets raped, his son becomes exiled, and his other two sons are killed.

Look Who's Talking

I think that Titus is trying desperately to connect with his daughter despite the grief that they are both feeling. He says here that he will try and interpret the signs she makes, despite the fact that she has not hands and no tongue with which to speak. Earlier in the speech he tells us that he is able to understand what she is trying to communicate and speaks for her. I can't help but notice that Lavinia's position now that she has been mutilated is not so different from her position before. Throughout the play she has had people speaking for her and, despite Titus's good intentions, I think Shakespeare wants us to be at least a little suspicious of whether or not his interpretation of her signs are accurate. This play seems to be concerned with speech in general. When Titus first murders Tamora's son, he's doing so to appease the dead who "ask [for] a sacrifice" (1.1.127). Later in the play Aaron writes a letter that, falsely, speaks for Quintus and Martius. Later Aaron comes and lies to Titus about Saturninus's willingness to pardon Titus's sons if he cuts off his hand and gives it to him. Throughout this play we have characters speaking for each other and manipulating each other's words. This problem with speech leads to many of the problems that the characters face.

I think I'm doing this right!

Kelsey, even gouging out her eyes wouldn't be enough, because she could still be read the names and then nod her head or make some other sign. The only clear solution:

You might have to break Lavinia's spine and gouge out her eyes to really finish the job, but I think this would be pretty total. 

I think Shakespeare didn't go further with the violence, or kill her, because he had to deal with the realities of the stage -- you can't just lop limbs off an actor, however much you might want to. And there's also the clear goal of using Lavinia later on in the play, which might explain the decision to mutilate Lavinia in a manner that could be horrifying, visible and easily done with 16th century stage equipment. Otherwise, yes, Shakespeare could have killed her off as easily as Kid whacked Horatio. 

I do think that it would have been, uh, interesting for Shakespeare to have blinded Lavinia, but for entirely different reasons.

Justice. As early as the Romans, Justice was depicted as a blind woman. Lavinia's own blinding would have been an excellent reference to this same concept. I can't decide if it was a blindingly silly mistake by Shakespeare not to include this, or a brilliant decision to ignore an obvious reference. Either way, it would have been fun.

Foolish Criminals

I agree with most of what's been said. The forest represents a place of transformation to everyone who symbolizes or participates in the old way of doing things. Bassianus is royal because his father was, Lavinia is important because she not only married Bassianus but is the daughter of the man who won great military battles. They both reach their downfalls in the forest. That Marcus discovers his niece and the things that have happened to her, I question. Maybe I missed something, but weren't Demetrius and Chiron supposed to prevent her from telling on them? I was under the impression that they would kill her and therefore make her fate undiscoverable. Though cutting off her tongue and hands might keep her from speaking or weaving the identities of her attackers into a tapestry, what's to stop Marcus from pointing at every man who was supposed to be on the hunt and asking Lavinia if that was him? She can nod her head. Couldn't they have gouged out her eyes or something so she couldn't see? They already raped her and cut off her hands and tongue, gouging out her eyes wouldn't be that big of a deal after all that. I feel that they haven't covered their tracks very well and that there are still ways for her to identify them without Marcus having to speak for her. Also, why is railing at her assailants all that Marcus is going to do? Rail at them? Really? That's it? While I agree that he's the voice of reason here, I believe Lavinia would have told him, if she could talk, that he was an unkind (unnatural) uncle for not avenging her and I would have to agree. I wonder that Shakespeare abandons this principle of 'natural' affection for his reasonable elected official.

Feminism?

When reading the quote, there is a glimmer of hope for "good" in the story. Shakespeare portrays Marcus, as Lauren says, as a "voice of the people." He deduces the rape of Lavinia and is able to figure out exactly what the criminal did to cover his tracks. On a different note, the removal of Lavinia's tongue and hands seems to be a metaphor for how women were silenced and had no control over their lives. Marcus becomes "the man" that talks for her and that interprets her actions. Although he may be helping to discover the perpetrators, Marcus still has a power over the weaker and silenced female, Lavinia.

The Forest

Lauren makes a good point. The constant referral of the forest symbolizes events of a "chase" or a "hunt." When Titus and his sons are hunting with their hounds and horns, Saturninus brags about Roman hunting (Act II, ii, 19-20). Aaron described it as a "wide and spacious, and many unfrequented plots there are, fitted by kind of rape and villainy" (Act II, ii, 114-116). The forest is definitely not associated with fun and pleasant times.

Voice of the people

In Act II.4 Marcus discovers Lavina after her rape with her hands cut off and tongue cut out. Marcus, tribune of the people, tells Lavina that he will speak for her.
The setting throughout act II takes place in the forest. The forest seems to bring a change in many of the characters. In Freudian terms, I believe that the character's ids took over and were expressed; people had a freedom over their wants and desires. The lack of boundaries and rules caused the characters to go wild. Many acted irrationally and in the moment; civilization was suppressed and their barbarous sides came to life. However even in the forest, Marcus, the voice of the people, reacted with reason. He was very upset and distraught about his niece, but remained calm. He didn't react out of anger or seek vengeance (which has been the downfall to many characters in tragedies). Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to give out his own message; the people should hold the power because they react with reason? Perhaps the beast that Marcus wants to "rail at" are the sins that occurred when "civilization" was not held in place.