About Edwin’s RollingLogBlog

There’s not much to say about me but a lot to say about what I think  about because what I think about is pretty cool.  I hope you think so.

I am older but not old and in great health.  I am a card carrying introvert who can talk (listen) to extroverts.. My political information comes from books at least 20 years old.  I  do not read the newspaper nor watch TV except baseball and now there is a year round baseball channel for guys like me.  I also watch HGTV because my wife does and Ellen show each morning before work because my wife does.  I have seen some pretty good chick flicks thanks to Linda. I do not watch fictional violence  and I love comedies.

I have made a multitude of relationship  mistakes in my life mainly because … well… ignorance. So I feel well qualified to tell you what not to do and why you shouldn’t do it.

Actually I think people suffer due to ignorance – the ignorance of not knowing how not to suffer.  Wishing to be free of suffering  is our prime motivator and makes us equal.  Also, that we came from mothers womb makes us equal.

I want to leave this world better than I found it and as a psychiatrist I have a wonderful opportunity to make a difference.  I don’t do much but my patients do the doing and that is very gratifying.

My craving is to understand life and why people do what they do which is a wish that grows each day.

I love this site because  I can  start  every sentence with an I.

Stay tuned. This site will change as I do.

Honest Sonnet#11 from the shoulder

Since there are no officially sanctioned sonnet interpretations that do not subscribe to  the “knock-her-up-for-the-child” garbage I volunteed to be the spokesman  for this “Honest Sonnet.”

First an editorial.

No one person can rescue the abused sonnets of Shakespeare from the mire. Therefore it is my hope that fans and admirers of the Bard  will join in the fumigation effort to bring honesty and freshness to these venerable works of literary art. The forces of common sense must take the bull by the horns and release the high drama that inspired such beauteous verse. Some day soon the rotting baloney associated with the sonnets will be shoveled away like Hercules did at Zeus’s stables.  With a good scrubbing and change of cloths Shakespeare will smell like a Sunday morning breakfast with bacon and eggs sizzling in the skillet.

Sonnet 11 according to No-Surprises-Larson:

As in previous sonnets the poet pounds away at his mothers refusal to publicly recognize their relationship.  I believe the poet to be talking to his mother the Queen of England to himself  and perhaps to Lady Ann Bacon, his wonderful foster mother.  Sometimes the object of his attention is not clear I have added both in A and B examples.

Shakespeare red

Larson’s translation green

Larson’s editorial black

As fast as thou shalt wane, so fast thou growest A. As fast as you (mother) age the more important you are to me.

B. As fast as I age I grow more important.

In one of thine, from that which thou departest; In one of your children – me – that fact of me as yours you   deny.

And that fresh blood which youngly thou bestowest And my birth which naively you gave to me

Thou mayst call thine when thou from youth  convertest  A. (to himself or his mother) You may have called me yours when you converted from a teen.

B. When I was born you had bestowed a promise until I was a teen. (in this version the poet recalls his mother in a rage attack telling him he was her son and would never be king)

Herein lives wisdom, beauty and increase:
wherein you live with wisdom and beauty increasing :

Without this, folly, age and cold decay: Which without this increasing beauty and wisdom, age and cold decay:

If all were minded so, the times should cease.
if we were so focused  the bad times we have now should cease.

And threescore year would make the world away.
And in 30 years we would make this world would be gone (through my plan for the world-the Great Instaturation)

Let those whom Nature hath not made for store. Let those for whom nature had not planned to keep (such as that deformed Robert Cecil who is insanely jealous of me and hates my guts)

Harsh featureless and rude, barrenly perish: Go to a harsh featureless and rude, barren ending:

Look, whom she best endow’d she gave the more;
(the poet to himself) Besides, look who mother best endowed with rank and gave me more talent than him. (She is either his mother or mother nature.)

Which bounteous gift thou shouldst in bounty cherish: (still to himself or to his mother) Which having these bounteous gifts you should bountifly cherish.

She carved thee for her seal, and meant thereby
( To himself) She gave me royalty which means

Thou shouldst print more, not let that copy die. (to himself) I should have a child, not letting the hope of another me die.

Larson’s Laws – Writing Division

Thou shall write every day or perish and decay into a “… sorry bookmaker.” (Francis Bacon)

There is never enough time to write well but always enough time to edit a thousand times.

Thou art a writer if thou thinkest. Thy spouse may tender an opinion.

Thou shall not redund.

Thou shall organize and pay well thy personal Trite Patrol even though you hate them.

Thou shall never read Stephen Kings “On Writing.” (I went to hell for violating that one but I didn’t know any better at the time).

Thou shall heed Hemingway’s advise on writing. I went to hell for not believing him at first

Thou shall write for the dignity of others.

Thou shall never criticize another authors writing. Thou may smash his misguided  motives or  false beliefs into tiny pieces.

Thou can not make thy characters do or think more than their God the author.

Thou shall play the phoenix alone.  No soul can know thou dost rise and fall to ashes except another phoenix.

To the world thy characters are strangers to you but are thy second family to thy heart.

Thou shall aspire, Thou shall aspire, Thou shall aspire.

.

Shagspur on Avon be not proud

The Tragedy of Sir Francis Bacon
An Appeal for further Investigation and Research
BY
HAROLD BAYLEY

“Shakespeare’s life is a fine mystery. I tremble every day lest something should turn up.”—Csimmas Therms.
“There is something about him (Bacon) not fully under¬stood or discerned.”—Paor. CRAIK.
1902

TO E. S. B. AND ALL OTHER LOVERS OF “

WHATSOEVER THINGS ARE TRUE.”

THIS book is an attempt to establish the following propositions:
1. That Bacon’s romantic fable, ” The New Atlantis,” is not an Utopian dream, but a thinly dis-guised account of an actual Secret Society, with which be was closely associated.
2.    That the Ojai of this Fraternity of learned men, known superficially to history as the Rosicrucians, or the Brethren of the Rose and Cross, was “the advance-ment of learning,” ” the bettering of men’s bread and wine,” and the ” universal reformation of the whole wide world.”
3.    That the principal method by which the achieve¬ment of this end was attempted, was the preparation and publication of instructive and elevating literature.
4.    That books published under the auspices of the Fraternity were secretly hall-marked, and are to be identified by peculiar and distinctive emblems, which may be found concealed in the form of paper-marks, printers’ ornaments, and wood-cuts.

S. That the Elizabethan renaissance was not a fortuitous outburst of wit and learning, but the result of a deliberately planned scheme.
6.    That the Plays first published anonymously, but which subsequently bore the pseudonym ” William Shakespeare” upon their title pages, were not the work of the play actor, “Mr. William Shakspere, of Stratford-on-Avon, in the county of Warwick, gent.,” but were written by Francis Bacon, who, for various reasons, considered it expedient to assume a mask.
7.    that Francis Bacon was likewise the author of much other similar literature, in many cases but the hack-work of youthful genius, and at present attributed to other men.
8.    that it was the philosophy of the Rosicrucians to endeavour to all as God’s deputies upon earth, to imitate, to the best of their ability, the order of the Universe, and that their publications are, as far as may be, modelled upon their favourite simile—the ” Book of Nature.”

9.    that, as Nature’s infinite book of secrecy possesses meanings, veiled and incomprehensible to the casual and superficial observer, so, in a finite degree, do the books which were published under Rosicrucian auspices.

1o. that Anairam, Enigma, and cipher writing were means and methods by which the Fraternity carried out their views, and that the frequently alluded to Magical Writing” of the Rosicrucians was in all probability nothing more nor less than the Biliteral cipher invented by Francis Bacon and described in Book VI. of his ” Advancement of Learning.”
That the discovery by Mrs. Elizabeth Wells Gallup that this well-known cipher is applicable to a large circle of medieval literature, is a genuine dis¬covery of the highest historical importance.
12. That there are indications that the system of con¬cealing secret information by means of ciphers prevailed largely not only in England but throughout Europe, and that in sixteenth and seventeenth century literature there is in all probability an El Dorado of information awaiting disentombment.
These are heterodox and subversive conclusions, and it is difficult to condense into reasonable limit the evidence which has led me to adopt them. Some of my witnesses may be badly informed, others misled or perhaps ir¬relevant, but to the best of my belief their testimony is honest, and I ask that their statements may be heard, and temperately considered, before being condemned.

The present volume does not claim to be more than an introduction to many of the subjects touched upon, but it will be found to embody not a few of the leading fah and the most recent discoveries upon a ;raja which, inasmuch as it concerns ” Shakespeare,” is of quite unparalleled interest.
It is a deplorable truism that we English people know nothing, or next to nothing, of one who is perhaps our noblest countryman: FRANCIS BACON, instead of being rightly revered or even respected, is to the majority but little more than a dishonoured name.

It is even more deplorable that as day by day new writers come forward with fresh faits, their evidence is unheeded or cried down. Where others have failed to obtain a hearing I cannot expea to succeed ; nevertheless the following pages have been written in the possible hope that they may perhaps awaken public interest and bring home to men’s business and bosoms the tragedy of a superlatively great man’s life.
” It will avail nothing to assail me. I am not at issue, and you cannot pound the life out of a fait with your fists. 4 truth has the indestruetability of matter. It is part of God ; the threads of continuity tie it to the throne of the Everlasting.”
H. B.
Honor Oak,
London.

Woman Whisperer – Sexy is as sexy does

Someday I hope to start a whisperer piece without having a mini-cerebral panic attack. Planning a topic that has real life relevancy reminds me of having dreams about being back in college and I forget to go to class or forget to show up for a test. This is not writers-block although writers block might be preferable to the garbage-attacks I do have.

Larson’s second law of writing says, There is never enough time for  good writing but there is always enough time to  re-edit thousands of times.

That’s enough B.S.

What about good looks? Attractive people seem to draw more positive attention than ugly or plain looking people.  Of course, they have more overall attention, good and bad, which could be good or bad for their life experience. The attractive person might seldom know for sure if a success or failure was on the basis of  looks or on the basis of their   work. Or, they may not care and enjoy flaunting.

Good looks could certainly be a trap that limits personality development or could enhance personality because they learn how to handle jealous people.

Gratefully, I am not one of those unfortunate people who must bear that kind of pressure. The square chin is overrated anyway and so are biceps for that matter.

While I’m at it, I should be grateful I’m not rich. What else? Superior intelligence. Whew. Missed that problem too. I sure wouldn’t want to be known as a brain without common sense. However, I can’t remember meeting a really unhappy intellect but  I have met plenty of unhappy folks with common sense.  I don’t think I am alone in this and as you know this is not a neutral subject nor do I find a pattern of behavior that suggests an instinctual origin that favors good looks because it’s not obvious that attractive people have more babies.

During sex you don’t care if you have a name much less what you look like. Just look around. I think there are more of us … er … I mean more of me than there are lookers. Let me be perfectly clear, only the beautiful people read the rollinglogblog and by reading this you qualify.

Judging attractiveness is no different from judging art but I am referring to the media standard.  I have a friend who draws comely human faces by using a formula so there may be a general definition of beauty.

Who has made a study of the ugly? You see? Discrimination is rampant.

The evidence that a species is successful is by having more babies who have more babies. Mother nature doesn’t care how they do it. However I think you gorgeous readers out there need more criteria to form a conclusion.

Lets pull the charts again and go back in time   to the days when families tended to be isolated from each other. Before villages and tribes existed one man hunted for the woman and child and the woman did everything else. Life was quick and over. So, efficiency in chosing a healthy breeding partner quickly would seem the priority.

Mother nature is clever. She made sex, the Kentucky Derby of our line feel so exquisite that our prehistoric ancestors would take 15 minutes of bliss in exchange for 15 years spent in slavery to the children. We don’t know if Cro-magnon associated sex and pregnancy but the question for evolution is irrelevant.

Who had more-babies that had more-babies back then? Answer, The better hunters and the better nurturers of course. What were their criteria for judging if they should get hitched when they were young and untested?

I suppose the man might brag and show his hunting muscles and the woman might … show her tits – the baby cafeteria. What else? He might show her his jack hammer because they might have associated big jack hammers with healthy babies. She might want to cuddle to show him how she cuddles the baby. She might play house and be nice to him to show him her mother skills.

During all this show and tell are they looking at each other? Yes at first but once they had sex and or committed to each other not that much. Now, thousands of years later when people lived together in groups of more than 100 individuals being attractive would definately help them live with each other under crowded conditions. I believe viliges happened as the frontal lobes enlarged to handle the social pressure of smelling your brother-in-laws feet without running away to an uncomplicated but childless life. For the trouble of living in a village we got a forehead, the brow ridge disappeared and we got Halle Berry and Brad Pitt who we want to live near. Mother nature is cleaver – result was more children andgrandchildren.

So, in conclusion, I think feeling and detecting and understanding our instincts will help us chose better dating and life partners.

One need only watch beer commercials or experience pick-up bars or cruise internet dating sites to witness evolution in action.

The first thing for the attractive-you to do is get an understanding of how serious you are about producing grand children. Remember, if you win the Ky Derby you have a sex partner. In evolution terms by itself that means squat. If you marry you win the Belmont Stakes. Evolution likes that better   for a generation and drop you like a bag of bones. If you raise children in such a way that they want to have children you win the Preakness and the Triple Crown of life  That means you have grandchildren which means you are likely are a good parent partner who married a good parent partner. In the future I will discuss how social dysfunction screws up the subtle but powerful instinct to produce and raise children.

So in concluding the conclusion, when you think about attractiveness you are thinking: Can I live near enough to this slob/wench/angel/prince long enough to have my grand children over for the holidays.

The advantage to having good looks would be only at the very beginning. Once we decide to open our hearts to the ardousness of the baby/grandchildren thing,, which requires a like thinking partner the instincts totally kick in so that only behavior condusive to raising children which means being nice (sexy) to each other which insures a good relationship – one that is pointed to the triple crown even if the triple crown isn’t possible. It’s in the genes.

Thank you for listening.

Shakespeare to the Limit – “Will in the World” validates Bacon’s authorship

I have always been a tad suspicious of book reviews because in school I had arbitrary motives for how I interwove the facts with my opinions. Like art arbitrariness is somewhat unavoidable but in this, my first book-review since college, I aim to serve truth, common sense and credit accomplishment as well as mark errors.

Modern electronics has made this particular “Shakespeare to the Limit” possible because I don’t have time for library research. At my finger tips is information inaccessible by time and distance a few years ago. With the internet  I can in single day  separate truth from BS,  have a day job and a family.

“Will in the World”  by Stephen Greenblatt until a few years ago would not have been critiqued by the common man because the necessary information was stored in the libraries in rare collections. The Book of the Year and Pulitzer Prize finalist written by a Harvard professor would remain gospel without the internet.

Professor Greenblatt is unquestionably a good writer and scholar and thus when I read “Will in the World” I took it to be the last word on the subject. I thought he did an amazing job of squeezing the last drop of extrapolated data from the official record.

However, I was unable to rid myself of the feeling that William Shakespeare was the oddest duck I’ve ever known, a fellow who flew completely under the radar. That man, I said to my wife, was a superior ass who no one wanted to know or was an idiot savant who no one wanted to know.

I was also troubled about the ease in which Stephen Greenblatt assumed that Shagspur and Shake-speare was interchangeable with the name William Shakespeare.  But, what-the-hell,  Harvard professors must know what they are talking about.

Then, months later during a Mark Twain reading frenzy I happened upon “Shakespeare is Dead.”  Mark Twain made good sense. I was intrigued by his logical conclusion that a man named Shakespeare could not have existed based on his knowledge of human nature. I began reading the plethora of material on the internet about the Shakespeare Conspiracy and guess what?   Mark Twain  – 1 and  Stephen Greenblatt – 0

Stephen Greenblatt need not have tried so hard to create a William Shakespeare to make the point. That, though,   isn’t so bad but he gets an F for leaving out easily accessible and relevant information the reader might want.  For example, in the brief discussion of the Northumberland Manuscript a bundle of papers with important names found in 1867 in a musty box at Northumberland, Professor Greenblatt mentions only Shakespeare.

I need not describe the manuscript because one can easily find the original and detailed descriptions on the internet and read all about it. The Northumberland Manuscript is the only known document containing the names of both Shakespeare and Bacon.

Professor Greenblatt claims the transcriber Dyrmouth’s mind wandered and wrote “Shakespeare” several times to see what it was like to do it. No one knows for sure if Dyrmouth was the transcriber but I wonder if Professor Greenblatt’s mind wandered when he ignored the name Mr. Francis William Shakespeare clearly written on the Manuscript?

Stephen Greenblatt’s mind did not wander. It was imperative that he leave out any reference to Bacon concerning the Northumberland Manuscript because  to proceed with the impossible way of existing Shakespeare would make the “Will in the World” a pointless excersize.

This omission by Stephen Greenblatt and his many Harvard advisers indicate beyond a reasonable doubt that they also believe Francis Bacon is the author of the plays which makes “Will in the World” a piece of political propaganda.

The only subject of substance in “Will in the World” is the Shagspur family history and a sociological snapshot of life in the late 1500’s and early 1600’s. Stephen Greenblatt also describes segments of home life, education, entertainment, religious persecution, street life, and the generally day-to-day experience of anyone living in England. Also, there is a focus on theater life and certain professions.

Stephen Greenblatt’s main purpose in writing “Will in the World” was to find clues in the plays and the sonnets that would all together present a credible man who wrote the plays. His method which was simple association that left him with no more than a hologram man and no real story.

“Will in the World” has failed because the author had no coherent or organized way of  finding subsurface stories he probably knows is there. He needs to absorb and comprehend the plays like learning a language or like a seaman comprehends the ocean and its currents. To find the gold.  He must also understand the relationship  of the plays to other works of the time.

I recommend Professor Greenblatt embrace Shakespeare like Orville Owens did in 1895 He memorized all of them.  That opened to him him the subtle irregularities in certain lines compared to the others. Then carefully following Bacon’s advise Dr Owens found the incredibly riveting story of Queen Elizabeth’s family as well as important events of the time that come from the text itself.

“Will in the World” reinforces the illusion that the folks in Elizabethan times were different from today but I think that misunderstanding is   mainly because scholars try to picture the culture through the  misinterpretation of the poetics.

For example, Stephen Greenblatt being a very intelligent fellow buys into the knock-her-up-pretty-boy absurdity which is a request to have assess to a beautiful child –  for what? Weird. The poet of the sonnets was not weird or a pedophile.

Please note:There are far easier and far more logical and relevant ways of understanding the sonnets.

I believe that a critic should not be allowed to critique  poetry unless the critic’s poetry is critiqued. In other words, you cannot know poetry unless you write it.

Stephen Greenblatt has more problems than other similar  biographies  separating truth from fiction in his “Will in the World.” He uses fewer maybe’s and could haves because he really wants substance. He can’t have substance because has chosen nothing to work with.

I also believe that Stephen Greenblatt would have won the Pulitzer Prize if he had either written a fictionalized story or had written about a playwright that actually existed.

The Queen’s New Cloths

Once there was a fair Queen who ruled England at a critical time in her country’s history. She loved her country and vowed to  never marry so she could be married to her beloved England.  In return she was much loved by her subjects.

She had a long and happy reign but shadow fell across her personal life because she cared for her reputation as a virgin above all else and gathered around her advisors who helped maintain her chaste image as well as protect her life for there was danger.

However she wasn’t a virgin. And she was a wife to a man. Everyone close to her knew because she looked pregnant and was often visited by a little boy and a man who she clearly loved. To everyone she denied having a family and of course only a  Queen could make people deny something they saw with their own eyes. It was a good secret until in a moment of anger the Queen herself told the little boy that he was her son. Then she must then suppress the waging tongues  even more  than before and gossipers lost their ears or more if they spoke of her family out loud.

Being a Queen she feared the truth would  weaken her authority which might ruin both her and her country.  She must appear fit for her high position by showing  only resolve  and no wavering.

Queens are expected to  go out in the world and despite her belly swollen with child  and with a little boy at her side she marched in full procession for all her subjects to  see and admire her.

Suddenly, the little boy  called  out to his mother the Queen to tell everyone that here was his mother and she will have another son very soon.

Unfortunately the Queen cringed and ignored the little boy who called out to her time after time, for the rest of her life even after she had another son who she also denied. Needless to say she lived and died a proud Queen but a very unhappy mother.  To this very day her subjects honor their Queen by obeying her proclamation of secrecy.

In fact centuries later  all memories of the necessary tyranny have vanished but not the tradition  of the virgin Queen. But what of the little boy she ignored? We cannot be upset at Queen Elizabeth because she was under unimaginable pressures. If she had presented her family to the world France and Spain would likely have jointly invaded England to replace her with a Catholic king.

Certainly a secret family was better than no family and no country  but those dangers are gone and I believe the Virgin Queen would lose no respect by allowing her secret royal family to become part of British history because she did what she had to do during some violent and troubled times.

When the secret will finally end Queen, Elizabeth I will be loved and respected more than ever  for giving England and the world William Tudor – William Shakespeare –  Sir Francis Bacon of St Alban who changed the world like no one before him or after.

Man Whisperer – Competativeness: fun or work

Man Whisperer – Competativeness: fun or work

Men play sports, cook, race, fight, debate, kill each other, compete for jobs. Men can and do compete in everything they do and make it obvious.

Do women compete? They do now in sports and other venues but a still only a tiny fraction of men.  Women compete but my impression is they don’t like to do it and don’t like to show it.

Women don’t want to overtly seem to enjoy winning or besting the opponent, generally speaking. Of course there are always exceptions.

Men are competitive and women aren’t, right?

Wrong.

Women are intensely competitively – so intensively competitive, in fact, they avoid it at all costs because the win or loss formula is far more critical than for men.

Lets go way back. All the way. The very first competition was for  life and the life of ones off-spring. The winner got to live  and love  one more day.

Back then both parents played a critical role in the survival of the baby until it was old enough to worry about it’s own babies but there was an appreciative difference in the tasks. If the man failed to bring food home one day he probably had another shot the next day.  If he missed bagging one deer he had  second or third shots.

The hardest working, focused  and most intense men who reveled in providing for his family had more children who became us. The men of today who are the most serious, hard working and focused win more sports games, win in business, prevail in debates etc.

Men could be killed out there in the jungle but their opponents – the game, time, terrain and predators were visible and the rules were obvious, bring home the bacon.

Because comparisons between men’s performance were clear and did not involve the immediate life or death death of a third person the time to enjoy the win or process the loss would cause  men to take compition less seriously.

Women on the other hand, had the job of keeping the baby alive moment to moment. Literally, if the woman lost in the compitition  the baby was dead – no second shot.   Compitition was was obviously critical.

So today women are 100x more serious about compitition than men.  Women do not like to hurt the feelings of others, always try for a compromise, are always observant of the distress of others and practice coordination and sharing. In facilitating a healthy family every one is treated equally unless someone’s needs are greater.

Being better than anyone else at any thing has no place in her perview because if the baby grows up normally there may be a validation for her sacrifices but no thrills because there is the next baby to worry about.

Relaxation technique # 10 Thought-ful

Basic relaxation is an outcome of the mental operation thought control.

Control your thoughts?

How is that possible because only  thoughts control thoughts and then what controls the thoughts controlling thoughts. More thoughts? Sure. What controls those? I have no idea but you don’t go on infinity. Just make the decision to do so.

I believe we don’t make the effort (me included) to let our thoughts control our thoughts because we only have confidence in our five senses to keep our minds busy with what we want. That works as long as we can control our environment. But how often is that?

One truth is for sure.

Controlling thought is Much much easier than controlling stuff and things around you because controlling things and stuff around you is impossible.  It seems counter intuitive for day to day living in this real world that thoughts are more user friendly than the car one drives or the food one eats but thoughts are truly yours – all yours and no one else.

They change, though.

Always change.

Well, so we do the stuff we try to possess and depend on and try to manage faithfully. But the stuff is even less faithful than thoughts because stuff always leaves you.

Always.

Thoughts created can be created again and can be shaped to exactly youe specifications.

Always.

Become familiar with your thoughts. Count them. arrange them. summon them. Dismiss them Pet them. Destoy them. Make them seem as real. Make them seem false. See what they can do for you.

A researcher of successful people recently found that 10,000 hours earnestly practicing a craft results in the mastery of that craft.  The craft of thoughts were not included in his research because … how do you research thoughts. You can’t by employing  the usual scientific  method with the usual control group etc.  The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal applies.

There is no final conclusion in this little  piece because thoughts are like that -  rolling, always rolling – like a rolling log blog.

Shakespeare to the Limit – Say it ain’t so

If you take a close look at the first 16 sonnets called the “procreation sonnets” and subscribe to the official textbook  interpretation it is hard not to think  Shakespeare was perverted.  This strange but universal interpretation which I have been calling the “knock-her-up-handsome” theme has soured for me because I decided to take the official theme to the limit and I got pedophilia. I suppose every one knew that already.

The official position supports the notion that the Elizabethan poet was  soliciting  a young man in way  that he will     have access to a child. There is no factual or literary evidence that hints of pedophilia among any Elizabethan poets but that is what we are allowed to believe.

Why?

Why would one unendingly support an abysmally poor literary critique that falsely accuses the author of crimes against children for hundreds of years unless you  seriously hated the author.

Why?

I think that the pedophile theme makes people avoid the sonnets.  Is discouraging  the study of the sonnets the motive?

Why?

Is the traditional interpretation designed to discourage people from discovering the exciting content there-in?

Why?

The  prose and poetry is so beautiful  one need not know the author’s intent for it to be thoroughly satisfying. The works’ longevity as our centerpiece of literature speaks for the quality and the decency of the topic.

I do not believe there is any sinister theme in the sonnets as  suggested by the official textbooks. In fact,  I believe the pedophile theme has been a major hinderance in Shakespeare research and appreciation.

Look at us. Here we are 400 years later and public knowledge about Shakespeare has yet to be delivered. I am not paranoid enough to believe that there is a carefully concealed plot to prevent Sir Francis Bacon from recognition.

What I perceive has to do with  British culture and psychology. The oppression of free speech was very rigorous  and still is obviously active now.

The stiff upper lip tradition is a message to shut up or be  stiff. Queen Elizabeth had not planned to tell  anyone about her two sons but she was the one to let is slip. When her sons found out about their heritage she had to work harder than ever to control everyone’s free speech and through the years before and after the out spoken individuals were imprisoned, mutilated, tortured, killed or sent to Australia or a wars halfway around the globe. There is no loyal british subject in power  today that will correct the 400 year mistake. The British can’t do it.

Honest Sonnet #10 Self love- not perversion

In Sonnet #10 the poet as talking to himself about himself.

I have chosen Wikipedia to take the dissenting position in this Honest Sonnet’s point-counter-point. Wikipedia (with my editorial comments added) says.

“Sonnet 10 is another of Shakespeare’s procreation sonnets. Shakespeare uses a rather harsh tone to admonish the young man (the poet himself) for his refusal to fall in love and have children (unless the young man is a grandson I’d say the poet likes little boys). The procreation theme is repeated, though for the first time a personal relationship between the poet and the youth is stated, even to the extent that the youth is asked to have a child to please the poet (in 1548 there was a law protecting  boys from forced sodomy and in 1578 it was against the law to rape  girl less than ten). The poem stresses the charm of the youth, who is much loved. The middle lines toy with imagery of political rebellion (the poet is hating himself), mentioning conspiracies (the poet is considering personal change) and destruction of houses (the poet means attitude and not roof of a house).”

The same old bizarre interpretation.

James I fondled boys in the royal court and got away with it because he was king and I do not think the author of the sonnets is talking about that anyway but the official Shakespeare scholars  think he is.

People! Do you see what I’m getting at?  Child abuse was not right then but THAT is the direction the official interpretation takes you.

I have written the more correct meaning in green below Shakespeare’s words in red

………………………………………………………………………………………

1  For shame deny that thou bear’st love to any,

Out of shame I deny that I  bear love to any one

2  Who for thy self art so unprovident.

who for them self is so thoughtless

3  Grant, if thou wilt, thou art beloved of many,

Granted, if I will, I am beloved by many

4  But that thou none lov’st is most evident:

But that I love no one is  most evident

5  For thou art so possessed with murderous hate,

For I am so possessed with murderous hate,

6  That ‘gainst thy self thou stick’st not to conspire,

That against myself I determine not to conspire

7  Seeking that beauteous roof to ruinate

Seeking that better attitude in order to think

(Roof would not mean the roof of a house)

8  Which to repair should be thy chief desire.

which to repair ( get my head on straight) should be my chief desire.

9  O! change thy thought, that I may change my mind:

O’ Change that thought, so I can change my mind

10 Shall hate be fairer lodged than gentle love?

Shall I hate more than love

11 Be, as thy presence is, gracious and kind,

Be, as my presence is, I gracious and kind

12 Or to thyself at least kind-hearted prove:

Or to myself at least be kind hearted.

13 Make thee another self for love of me,

make another me  for love of me

14 That beauty still may live in thine or thee.

That beauty still  may live in my child or me