Both Rich and Shakespeare address the theme of true love in their respective poems Living in Sin and Let Me Not to the Marriage of True Minds. The subject matter of both poems deals with the nature of true love, the various implications of which are explored by each poet. However, similarity of theme in no way guarantees treatment agreement; it can be argued that both poems have opposing or paradoxical views of the same concept. While Shakespeare portrays his vision of ideal love with great conviction, Rich, in a seemingly careless series of disjointed images, portrays a realistic depiction of the plight of two lovers. Simply put, or even simplistically, it can be argued that Shakespeare has the romantic vision of love while Rich has the realistic one. A closer examination of both poems will help to understand how each deals with and represents the theme of true love. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay It is interesting to note the Christian allusions relating to marriage in both poems. In Shakespeare's Sonnet 116, he says, "Let me not marry true minds/admit impediments," clearly calling to mind the traditional Christian wedding ceremony in which those who admit impediments are asked to "speak now or be forever silent." ”. Rich suggestively titles his poem “Living in Sin,” which superficially indicates adultery in the context of Christian marital principles, but could well represent the sin of remaining in a loveless or unsatisfying marriage or commitment. This is just one of the ways the poems can be contrasted in how they deal with the theme of love. Another interesting way they can be seen is the way they are formed and structured. Shakespeare's version of ideal love follows the native form of iambic pentameter and its typical rhyme scheme of abab, cdcd, efef, gg. Rich, on the other hand, uses free verse to show the striking images that make up “living in sin” – “Half heresy, wishing the knocks were less vocal, the windows cleared of dirt. A plate of pears, a piano with a Persian shawl, a cat chasing the picturesque and amusing mouse had risen at his prodding. Not that at five o'clock every separate staircase writhed under the milkman's step; that morning light so cold would outline the leftovers of the previous evening's cheese and of three sepulchral bottles; that on the kitchen shelf among the saucers a pair of beetle eyes would stare at his - sent from some village in the moldings...” The strictly regimented focus of ideal love in Shakespeare's sonnet gives way to disillusionment and to the ambiguity of the reality of love in Rich's verse. In line with this, the poets also have contrasting tones. Rich is an omniscient narrator who, while delving into the uncertainties and pain in the woman's mind, is nevertheless separated from the woman and therefore a more reliable representative of his experience of true love – although unhappy, in the evening the inconsistent and most likely insecure woman is "she was in love again, though not quite but..." Shakespeare is resolute and so confident in his vision of true love, he goes so far as to proclaim: "If this be a mistake and it has been proved upon me, I never wrote, nor did any man ever love." By saying this he effectively denies the possibility of any disagreement, since obviously it cannot be denied that he wrote and that men have actually loved each other over the centuries. In the realm of reality, there is no truth, the woman can be in love one moment and.