These Variations-on sonnets by Shakespeare capture the real essence of his times

I plan to argue that the work cited by Pro fails in some critical way to capture the essence of Shakespeare and “his times”. The criteria of judgment which I make available to myself are: -Historical correctness of format (rhyme scheme, metering, line count, are all highly definitive aspects of Shakespeare and his contemporary milieu). - Historical correctness of word usage and expressed sentiment (lexical and attitudinal anachronisms run contrary to capturing the real essence of a historical period). -Artistic accuracy of tone, theme, and topic (all three are stylistically paramount to any attempt to “capture the real essence” of Shakespeare and his time). A gross violation of any one or combination of these central criteria would disqualify any poem as a successful encapsulation of Shakespeare and his times. I also want to establish that merely spoofing Shakespeare (even successfully) wouldn’t qualify as “capturing the real essence of his times”. Fulfilling that condition isn't simply a matter of imitation, but of emulation, which requires that the original be matched in both degree and kind. For example, it’s true that Shakespeare used bawdy humor in his plays and sonnets, but an amplification of these elements to a level of overt hyperbole (for example) wouldn’t count as “capturing the real essence” of them. Such an effort might succeed as a parodical distortion of the original work (through a type of imitation), but it wouldn't succeed as an emulation of it or the "real essence of its time". In turn, the things which the poems cited by Pro should successfully emulate are outlined by the three criteria above.Now, it actually wasn't difficult to find several cases in which the work conspicuously violates these critera (I chose one of the more tame examples). Consider sonnet 30 in the work cited by Pro: "When to the sessions of sweet silent thought, I summon up remembrance of things past, I sigh the loss of so many fvcks I sought, And with old woes new wail my dear time's waste: But then the cocks eye precum comes (unused to flow) For lovely cvnts hid in death's dateless night, And oozes afresh oer lust's long since cancelled woe, And throbs tumescent at many a cvnts vanished sight. Then can I pull at cvnts lomg gone, And move from woe to happiness to tell oer The gay account of girls-bemoaned moan, Which I now lay as if not layed before. But if the while I think on thee (OLD friend) All losses are returned, and sorrows have no end." [1]Now, our intuitions have already reacted to this poem without any need for anaylsis, and I guarantee they aren't convinced that this is a variation on Shakespeare or an encapsulation of his time in history. The tone of the poem is one of pornographic lust narrated by unsymbolic descriptions of the human anatomy: a decidedly unshakesperean mode of expression. Moreover, the use of the word "precum" is a glaring anachronism and an instance of clumsy, leering slang: a full infraction of artistic and linguistic accuracy with respect to Shakespeare and his time. The word "cum" as a noun meaning "male ejaculate" traces its origin to pornographic writings after 1920. [2] The earliest attestation of "precum" which I could find occurs in 1996. [3] This immediately consigns the entire corpus of sonnets to the category of "horny spoof". It doesn't capture anything like the "real essence" of Shakespeare's time. Now, Shakespeare himself did address the topic of lust, but in ways that were legitimately clever and scrupulous (but not undaring), unlike the crude pelvic-thrustings-in-verse of the above sonnet. For comparison, the following (known as Sonnet 151) is considered among the bawdiest of Shakespeare's sonnets [4]:"Love is too young to know what conscience is, Yet who knows not conscience is born of love? Then, gentle cheater, urge not my amiss, Lest guilty of my faults thy sweet self prove. For, thou betraying me, I do betray My nobler part to my gross body's treason; My soul doth tell my body that he may Triumph in love; flesh stays no farther reason, But rising at thy name doth point out thee As his triumphant prize; proud of this pride, He is contented thy poor drudge to be, To stand in thy affairs, fall by thy side. No want of conscience hold it that I call Her ‘love’ for whose dear love I rise and fall." [4]Here he achieves an expression of troubled concupiscence which doesn't sound like a direct transcription of public self-fondling. Thus, there is no congruence of language, sentiment, tone, or "real essence" between this sonnet and the one which Pro has to defend; there is no way to justify Pro's sonnets as "variations on Shakespeare". They fail to capture the essence of him and his time by their use of modern slang mixed with inept, pseudo-archaic pornographic writing. The many other criterial violations in the given work would be superfluous to mention (although there are two more rounds to go).In any case, from this single example, the resolution is denied. But wait, there's more: every sonnet in Pro's collection is equally as anachronistic and unabashedly oversexed as this one sample; some are even worse:"Take all my fvcks, my love..." [1]"Shall I compare thy cvnt to a summers' day?" [1] "But thy cvnt's glory shall not fade..." [1]"Sometimes too hot the eye of the c0ck shines..." [1] On and on it disgustingly goes: the relentless, horny doggerel of some dreadfully creepy Fakespeare. Vote Con.[1] http://www.scribd.com...[2] http://etymonline.com...[3] http://en.wiktionary.org... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org...