Talk:To His Coy Mistress
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
To His Coy Mistress survived vfd. See: talk:To His Coy Mistress/Delete. Wile E. Heresiarch 02:15, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Alright, that's looking a whole lot better. Can't we delete that childish summary though?--[[User:HamYoyo|HamYoyo (Talk)]] 14:24, Jun 1, 2004 (UTC)
- Great work by everyone who's worked to rescue this from VFD-dom. A couple of comments:
- - I removed the line numbers from the poem box. Do we need to the number the lines? If so, can we do it somehow with a bit more subtlety? (I'm not sure about the "glossary" entry at the bottom, either: was that just a leftover from the cut&paste?)
- - "Times Winged Chariot" and "Vaster than empires, and more slow" have also been used as book (or story) titles. Could a reference be dragged in?
- Drag away! Dpbsmith
- - With this, and Ozymandias, and Chapman's Homer, it's about time we started a "Poems" category.
- –Hajor 15:11, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- And Casabianca, don't forget Casabianca. :-) Dpbsmith 15:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- Also: the final reference to "The Garden" -- is that Marvell's own "The Garden"? –Hajor 15:20, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I really like the inclusion of the whole poem, and the visual appearance is very nice. (I was afraid to suggest this for fear some official busybody would want to transwiki it to WikiQuotes or WIkiSource).
In The Lesson of the Moth, Don Marquis has the moth say
it is better to be happy
for a moment
and be burned up with beauty
than to live a long time
and be bored all the while
so we wad all our life up
into one little roll
and then we shoot the roll
that is what life is for
I'm trying to decide whether this is arguably a reference to "Let us roll all our strength and all/Our sweetness up into one ball". Dpbsmith 15:35, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC) i personally think this might be a reference to money in the usage of the word wad i may be wrong but thats the general effect i get from this poem.
Great stuff, Geogre! Thanks, oh 18th century Brit Lit person! Dpbsmith 19:03, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] SE
id just like to ask any experts on the subject if there are any biblical references in there im only asking as i am not very acustomed with the bible i just woondered if anyone was. sorry to delete this guys meesage but it was immature and pointless anyway.
[edit] SEX????
How do you think it is about sex? I have to write an analyses paper about this poem and another poem called "To the virgins, to make much of time" i think it is all too confusing for me.. Can you anyone help? e.mail me at MotaSpider@NetZero.com Thank you to anyone who e.mails me i appreciate your time.
- We're not going to do your homework for you. Try reading the article, which explains this point clearly. Then try reading the poem, which is fairly clear, too, once you get past the dated language. If you want a real answer, try asking some specific question that shows you've actually tried to tackle your assignment. For starters, why don't you read the poem and try to "translate" it into straightforward, non-poetic, modern, colloquial English? First phrase: "I wish we had all the time in the world..." Dpbsmith (talk) 13:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
[edit] This one still needs quite a bit of work
The author of this piece makes quite a few assumptions, that really should not be included in an informational piece. In an essay on the work those would be fine, but it's best these articles stick to the facts.
One thing I find grating is the use of the term "lovers" when they are not. They are only "lovers", when the act of lovemaking has been concluded. "Lovers" implies that you have actually made love. While I can agree that different terms vary in the time frame that they are used, "lovers" still implies a relationship, wether actual intercourse has happened or not. This women wants no part of this gentleman and there is no relationship of any kind implied or stated, other than they might, and I say might, know who each other are, a little bit, maybe. You can not be said to be "lovers" with someone just because they are in love with you. Hence the "s" on the end of the word. If I am in love with Brad Pitt (then or now) that does not make us "lovers." That is taking a definition way out of control and way away from proper usage. The word should not be used here, period.
The reference to "The Garden" is a poem by Andrew Marvell which is pretty clear in the article, I don't quite understand how one could confuse the statement.
The reference to Vegetable Love has nothing whatsoever to do with where fruits come from. It is a reference to the idea that vegetables have the power to grow, but lack consciousness.
I don't see that the speaker is "arguing" with his mistress either. (Unless you mean in the alternate use of the word arguement, meaning his defense of his posistion. Even so, to avoid confusion that word should not be used here.) He is begging his mistress to have sex with him before they grow old, lose the desire to make love and die where her honour and his desire will mean nothing and the chance to enjoy each other is past and gone. Nothing new that what some men do everyday, beg, plead and make ridiculous arguments to women about why they should give up their virginity to this specific man.
There should indeed be line numbers present. They serve several functions. The least of which include easily locating a specific line referenced in your defense of the piece without the reader having to count them all to find the line you mean. (You should always referenece the line of a poem when making an explication).
I could go on, but since a valiant effort was made, and not by myself, I will say this is a pretty good overall piece and would be great with a bit more effort.
[edit] Coyness exemplified
I don't like this euphemism The speaker of the poem is arguing with his mistress and attempting to persuade her to make love with him. For one thing it's an americanism in an article about a British poem (so British conventions usually apply). For another thing why can't it just say ...attempting to persuade her to have sex with him. Make love is not only euphemistic it's also ambiguous, for example it states here that it can mean To engage in amorous caressing or To have sexual intercourse, British people would understand the first meaning (especially those of the older generation). The last time I checked a dictionary sex was not considered a rude word, it's used by biologists all the time. If no one objects then I'm going to change it in a week or so. Alun 18:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Centre Justified?
Why is the poem in thsi artical centre justified. The origional poem was ragged-right. Was this done intentionally to comply with some random (and wrong) style guide, or did someone just think it looked pretty? Mark 193.63.135.120
If thats whats you think, and with good reason, change it!Jnb 01:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] This article needs an objective overview.
The body of this article is not objective what-so-ever. I have read many scholarly articles regarding this particular poem, and the statement that it is purely sexual is only one angle of interpretation. The article should represent all angles of interepretation. For example, please refer to Robert W Halli, Jr.'s essay, "The persuasion of the Coy Mistress". He gives reasonable evidence that the narrator's motives are purely procreational; and that his desire is not necessarily to just make love for pleasure, but to bear children. This desire is coupled with his longing to potentially marry the coy mistress. To simply cast it off as a desire to have sex would not represent this possibility. The author should revise it to meet this criteria. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.74.62.162 (talk • contribs).
[edit] Some Disagreements
I always took "vegetable love" to mean as opposed to "animal love."
Why the the quibbling over sex as opposed to sex for procreation? It's still sex. And why the potential marriage stuff? It is irrelevant to the poem and represents a relatively new proclivity to have to sugar-coat everything involving sex. This is almost as silly as saying that the Song of Songs was really about love for God, and in that case we have records of actual arguments over whether it should be included. It's about sex. Epepke 05:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
