Comments on: Shakespeare’s Sonnets

By: Evo

Evo — Wed, 22 Aug 2007 00:02:02 +0000

We may need a listing for “abandonded”, though we’ve honestly only had a handful. When it seems that the author is seriously behind and may not return anytime soon, we remove the book from the current search listings so that we don’t disappoint more people.

But hopefully, the author will return and complete a book. So I hesitate to bring it down all together. If we did, then all of the current subscribers would never know when it was completed.

Luckily, it’s only happened a few times.

By: Byron Int

Byron Int — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 21:15:16 +0000

Last episode was November 2006. We are now nearing September 2007. Looks obvious that Some Guy is not returning. Perhaps the book should be marked as Complete?

By: J.P. Wearing

J.P. Wearing — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:45:37 +0000

While this is an interesting concept, I have to share Suzanne’s reaction: the delivery is just painful to listen to. I should also declare my “conflict of interest” in that some of the whys and wherefores of the Sonnets are a part of my recent book, “The Shakespeare Diaries.”

By: MARK

MARK — Thu, 07 Jun 2007 13:05:12 +0000

This has been an absolute gem for me. Never able after my school career ended to approach WS’ works, SG from NY has done the bard (and himself) proud. The essential meaning of the sonnets has been revealed and with a clarity that is ideal for a Shakespeare newbie such as me. It has stimulated my interest to read more, thank you for a truly inspiring view into this world.

Beyond this, no doubt, there are further layers of meaning that can be appreciated. However some of the negative comments you have published are truly sad. Ron - you don’t like SGFNY’s elocution and were looking for some signs (you could understand) of personal development, Dave - you know better what the courts ordered and find it pedantic and stripped of romance. Well I think you are all in need of psychiatric help. I mean, get serious, are you major a**holes or what. Try examining your own responses; perhaps you are just jealous that you didn’t have the opportunity to bore us with your pretentious insights. You think because you’ve read a bit of Shakespeare you have ‘richer, deeper’ feelings, you know what the poet ‘intended’, you have the right to comment on someone’s inner life?

Some Guy from New York you are GREAT, consider becoming a teacher full time and ignore all the richards out there geddit?

By the way Ron, persona is spelt with one n - you definitely don’t demonstrate personal growth as influenced by the use of a dictionary

By: Ron Ibach

Ron Ibach — Sat, 03 Mar 2007 02:54:53 +0000

Ok, I am actually enjoying the exposition (aw right). As more of an educational course (aw right), rather than a novel (OK). However, round about sonnet 18 (OK), I was sort of getting unnerved (aw right), because Jason (OK), tends to use certain words (aw right) repeatedly, as he sort of (OK), collects his thoughts (aw right).

I was expecting his personna to demonstrate a personal growth as influenced by the sonnets’ progression, but as of sonnet 22, this doesn’t appear to be true. To me, it appears that Jason missed an opportunity.

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:33:46 +0000

Courts don’t require this kind of thing. They’re far more likely to require someone to help out at the local soup kitchen / shelter, pickup trash, or engage in some similar community service (with good reason: action based learning works, and such services are needed). Certainly a court wouldn’t select Shakespeare’s Sonnets when there are so many other less controversial works that should have the same effect of getting a criminal in touch with worthwhile human relations.

So the whole premise that he is using is bogus. That said, his interpretations seem mostly accurate. Plus his premise, however bogus, including the accent and occasional city street sounds makes the normally Elizabethan content approachable. Without question, that is why the author chose to use this persona, and it is quite effective.

For me however, I found his pedantic treatment of the sonnets entirely removed the romance and passion that shakespeare intended. In fact, I find that to be the case for most analytical dissecting of any poetic verse. Which brings me to the point that this treatment entirely defeats the whole original intent of the sonnets: to woo women.

A far better treatment (imo) would have been for him to put the whole thing in his own words and paint himself as the bard of NY, with no commentary regarding the original content whatsoever.

By: suzanne

suzanne — Tue, 26 Dec 2006 16:24:24 +0000

No offense, but this is just awful. It isn’t funny, listenable, or even enlightening. Painful to listen, and I only tried 3 random episodes! I cannot recommend it. Sorry.

By: Jamila

Jamila — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:32:02 +0000

i’m really surprised no one’s commented about this yet! i can’t help but wonder if this is really true, or somehow fabricated, but that’s pretty much besides the point.

because the main thing is, this stuff is hella funny, honest, and endearing.

have subscribed, and can’t wait to hear this on a daily basis