Since its publication, Shakespeare's 66. Sonnet has been translated into countless languages. The attraction and attention aroused by this particular sonnet have been so immense that it is still being translated, vocalized, performed, sung, and studied. Many Turkish people practicing various professions have retold and translated said sonnet into Turkish. The translation that attracts both admiration and criticism belongs to Can Yücel. The criticism is mostly due to Yücel's translational approach and his idiosyncratic use of language. Aspects of translation criticism are usually based on translator's visibility, appropriateness of translational purpose and the target text's loyalty to the source text. In translation criticism on poems, these aspects are exacerbated by the addition of other factors, such as content and form because of the text type. Yücel was a poet, an author, a journalist, and at the same time a trained and self-aware translator. In his interviews, he tried to clarify his scope and support his decisions as a translator. This way, he tried to deflect the criticism being directed at his translations and his identity and legitimacy as a translator. He aimed to justify his translational act by giving himself the title "Teller in Turkish". The question here is whether or not he was a teller or an orator in the target language or a translator. Could his target texts be classified as translations or adaptations? Numerous translation critics and readers have busied themselves with these questions. The purpose of this article is to try to find answers to these questions by examining Yücel's translation of Shakespeare's 66. Sonnet. Firstly, the source text and its author, then the target text and its translator are addressed in terms of historical context, reception, linguistic features, and figures of speech. The scientific background is based on Reiss's text typology in order to present the characteristics and problematic points of this particular text type. Furthermore, this article aims to define the translation scope in consideration of Vermeer's Skopos Theory. Moreover, Amman's reflections on the theory of translation criticism are discussed, and lastly, Cicero's definitions and ideas about a successful orator and translator are examined. To summarise these considerations it can be said that, based on the target text, Yücel's translation scope (which is derived from his interviews) is in accordance with and a successful embodiment of Vermeer's and Cicero's shared views of a good orator and translator. According to this, Yücel succeeded in bringing the source text to the target language by winning recognition from his target audience, all the while protecting his loyalty to the source text's form, message and effect.