»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #2
»
Sonnet 4
| Critical Analysis #2 |
|
Sonnet 4 |
|
|
AquariusX New Member
since 2002-09-11
Posts 9 |
What pleasures lie in the gilded kingdom? Earth is quite content to tread upon flesh, Heavenly hindrances does man relish, And thus a camel's higher chance to come. What justification for good men scorned? Villainous worms of low integrity, Often receive Fates' taut-thread charity, To be met with untold riches adorned. Yet every due course will someday be run, Through corridors of light silhouettes band As those lost of God's Wind find renewed breath. Magnificent audience to the Sun, With bright Stars provides the most pleasure and Eternal disregard for perished Death. |
||
| © Copyright 2002 AquariusX - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
Hey there... Firstly, I want you to know that I am absolutely NO help really as far as structured verse is concerned...never written one (oh, I did 8 ghastly lines of a sonnet once before I gave up heh, something about bloody sparrows - gah). I'm stopping in here because I've just read the commentary on your other sonnet and have a couple of things in general to say... Something I do know in regards to meter, simply from the benefit of my english degree - be careful if you're playing with meter, very careful. It will either be disastrous, or innovative. Best to stick to a strict meter (with maybe a feminine ending one or twice, ie 11 syllables, correct me someone if I'm wrong on that) or create your own, consistent meter. Of course it wouldn't 'technically' be a sonnet then. Secondly, you mentioned in your other post that you're writing archaic-sounding poetry because that is all you know. I have a couple of questions to put to you in that case. Does this kind of poetry fulfil you? Do the topics interest you? Is your heart in it? If the answer is no to any of these questions, then my suggestion is to expand your reading, your knowledge. Find fresh blood to mull over.  Try writing something non-structured. Play...playing with words and styles is fun...You don't know, I think, what a challenge you've taken on - having written 7 poems and half of them sonnets. That's great dedication you know, truly admirable. Even more admirable shoving them into a critical analysis forum for other people to rip apart - takes guts. There ya go, all I wanted to say...other than welcome to the forums..  K |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Hey K, I'm pleased to hear that you approve of the occasional feminine ending (you were right on that, you know). It is one of my favorite toys. Thanks, Pete P.S. It's good to see you in here again. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
A- My suggestion is that you keep plugging away. Metered and rhymed verse is difficult to write well and, often, we all find ourselves trying to shoe-horn our rhyme into the end of the lines. Try experimenting with enjambment ... that is, allowing your sentences to spill onto the following lines. The rhyming syllables should remain in the final iamb of each line, but there is no rule that says that a sentence or phrase must end with the line. Read some other sonnets (Shakespeare's are most accessible), and notice how other writers pull this off. Also, I think, as Rob pointed out in another post, that you read the poem aloud so you can hear how some of the lines are jarring. In my opinion, I think it is important to learn how to write in simple, iambic pentameter before playing with conventional variations. When sound and imagery are not playing to the same beat, it affects the whole performance. Just my opinion. Jim |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Aquarius Firstly thank you for taking my rather forthright critique on your other sonnet so constructively. Secondly, listen to Jim. His advice is good. Thirdly, this attempt is marginally better than the first but the inversions and syntax are still excruciating: “Heavenly hindrances does man relish” - Do you mean “Man relishes heavenly hindrances”? “To be met with untold riches adorned” - verging on nonsense. “Through corridors of light silhouettes band As those lost of God's Wind find renewed breath” - Is this a mind bogglingly convoluted way of saying “souls are found?”, and “God’s Wind”!!?? ... er “Magnificent audience to the Sun, With bright Stars provides the most pleasure and Eternal disregard for perished Death.” - Is this a sentence? “... perished Death” - hilariously tautological, are you shooting for vanquished death? Although you tell me that Death is personified this is way over the top, and as a result becomes humorous. Seriously Aquarius you would write much better verse if you quit trying to emulate long dead poets and let go of the compulsion to try to write overtly about the BIG themes. Instead why don’t you try a sonnet written in the normal language of today using the words you speak every day and maybe about a recent experience you have had. Better still drop the whole rhyming thing for a while and try writing without worrying about rhyme but concentrate instead on the whole sound of the poem. Believe me this sequence of sonnets is doing your development as a poet no good at all. But anyway a sincere thank you for sparing us numbers 2 and 3! Rob |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Rob, Although this is the Critical Analysis forum, we usually try for CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. I think you can do better than, quote: I fail to see any constructiveness in that! The only purpose that sort of language can serve is to discourage a new poet. Thanks, Pete |
||
|
AquariusX New Member
since 2002-09-11
Posts 9 |
Severn: "Does this kind of poetry fulfil you? Do the topics interest you? Is your heart in it? If the answer is no to any of these questions, then my suggestion is to expand your reading, your knowledge. Find fresh blood to mull over. Try writing something non-structured. Play...playing with words and styles is fun..." Actually it does, I enjoy sonnets as a lot playing around with diction and syntax is required (Sonnet 1 is the only one in which I didn't even acknowledge iambic pentameter). I find it fun to compose an idea, then fit it into the poem. I would suppose that I have no idea as to the jarred rhythm of the sonnets, because the manner in which in read my poems leads me to believe that it flows smoothly. I haven't been consciously stressing every other syllable when I read, for example. "“... perished Death” - hilariously tautological, are you shooting for vanquished death? " Mind telling me the difference between perished death and vanquished death...? "But anyway a sincere thank you for sparing us numbers 2 and 3!" As I've said previously, I actually appreciate constructive criticism, but this is indecent... "“To be met with untold riches adorned” - verging on nonsense" How? "syntax are still excruciating" I get the impression that you abhor any syntatical changes, regardless of if it does not overtly cause a line to be made nonsense. Within your replies, Rob, I perceive a few lines of importance and at least one outright offensive sentence. Nevertheless, I will take it as constructively as possible. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
Pete I hear what you say and had I written the offending lines in isolation with little or no attempt to spend my time and effort to genuinely try to help this poet I would have offered you and the poet an unreserved apology. As it is I don’t. (Offer an unreserved apology that is). I have now spent upwards of 45 minutes reading analysing and commenting on Aquarius’ poems in an attempt to give my honest unvarnished opinion and then offer some advice as to how improvements might be achieved. These sonnets are in my opinion very badly conceived and executed. Also in my opinion it would be a gross disservice to any budding poet not to immediately and firmly inform them of this and seek to point them in a potentially more fruitful direction. At no time have I denigrated Aquarius as a poet or person. Quite the reverse, I have seen that he or she is keen to write and I have sought to stamp out bad habits and point the way to better ones. After the first post I made my views on the poem fairly clear, to the point where I would have thought Aquarius might have realised that if he or she posted a further almost identically flawed poem withing a few days this would be tantamount to saying, “Ok Rob, I hear what you say but I’m not gonna take the blindest bit of notice, here’s another for you to do your worst on.” In the circumstances I think I would have been justified in a fairly sarcastic response. Instead of which I started the reply by thanking Aquarius, and patiently went on to point out many of the same errors again. Then ok, right at the end, I poked a little mild fun, hardly violently offensive, and given what had gone before well within the bounds of an overall package designed to constructively push the poet into the “right” channel to make progress. So yes, overall very constructive criticism. Thank for listening. Aquarius Mind telling me the difference between perished death and vanquished death...? >>> Dead Death versus Overthrown Death "But anyway a sincere thank you for sparing us numbers 2 and 3!" As I've said previously, I actually appreciate constructive criticism, but this is indecent... >>> See my comments to Pete above. "““To be met with untold riches adorned”” - verging on nonsense" How? >>> Sorry. I was wrong. I have now re-read this line and changed my opinion. It certainly IS nonsense, no caveat. Do you mean “to be met with untold riches” or “to be with untold riches adorned” or neither? "syntax are still excruciating" I get the impression that you abhor any syntatical changes, regardless of if it does not overtly cause a line to be made nonsense. >>> No, I am merely advocating that you try to write in comprehensible English and in an unstilted way. Within your replies, Rob, I perceive a few lines of importance and at least one outright offensive sentence. Nevertheless, I will take it as constructively as possible. >>> Thank you Aquarius. Believe it or not I do mean to be constructive. There are far far too many poetry boards which profess to assist new writers yet sprinkle platitudes and misplaced encouragement leading enthusiastic poets down pathways which end in banality and worthlessness. I didn’t mean to be offensive and I am sorry you interpreted it that way. By the way did you like the poem I provided the link to? Rob |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Why am I expecting Paula Abdul to chime in with something nice to say after Rob's "Simon-esk" critique?  Aquarius (and Pete): As aggressive as Rob's critique is, I believe it is appropriate for this forum. If we are not prepared to help poets write better poetry, then we are all wasting our time here. If you want to make rapid progress, A-, I suggest you pay close attention to Rob's advice (and Kamla's as well). quote: I must admit that I feel a little like Alice after she read "Jabberwocky" and said, "It seems quite pretty, but it's rather hard to understand." Certainly, there is no "whiffling through the tulgey wood", but your heavy use of Biblical allusion has much the same effect on me. The only reason I (think I) understand the first four lines is because I (think I) am familiar with the passages you allude to. Basically, man doesn't care for heavenly things because he is quite content with the sarx or worldly life. Besides, it is "easier for a camel to fit through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." But as obscure as the meaning of "camel" and "eye of the needle" is in Jesus' words (many scholars believe the "eye of the needle" was a small opening in the walls of first century Jerusalem, rather than an actual needle), your words are even moreso. The inconsistency of meter is exacerbated by your tearing words out of their natural place in a sentence for no better reason than to preserve your rhyme scheme. My suggestion: drop the sonnet idea for this poem and write it out in some manner of free-verse ... or even blank verse (metered without rhyme). At least, then, I think the lines would more likely read easier and the meaning, dispite the heavy use of allusion, would be easier to ascertain. quote: Your poetic turn is in the right place, anyway. These lines 5 and 6 read less laborously than the first four, but I really don't like "taut-thread charity" or "untold riches adorned" or "corridor of light silhouettes band". The last line above seems to be an allusion to a resurrection event. Again, I feel like Alice, "Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas - only I don't exactly know what they are." I have some theological training and, even then, I am struggling with the meaning of a few of your lines. Clarity, clarity, clarity when you want your point to be made clear. If you want to hide your meaning in obscurity, that is another matter, but, given the subject matter, I doubt you want to clothe your meaning in too many layers. quote: A zealous statement, there is no doubt. But I can't help but to think you ran out of syllables before you were able to finish your thoughts. Perhaps consider dropping "provides the most pleasure" and elaborating on the idea of "perished Death". That said, I am not particilarly fond of "perished" death, preferring "vanquished", for poetic, logical and theological reasons. If death is not "perished" now, does that mean that Death is currently alive? If Death is alive, how can Death be Death? If Death dies, does that mean it becomes alive? I'm only hammering the point because "perished death" does not make much sense. Theologically, death has dominion, or power over man ... everybody dies. Vanquishing or deposing death is what is accomplished by salvation (albeit, in Christian theology, this the final stage of salvation, i.e., "glorification", is a future event). Death doesn't die as a result of glorification. It loses its dominion and power over man. Just a few thoughts. I hope they are helpful to you. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (09-14-2002 05:17 PM).] |
||
|
AquariusX New Member
since 2002-09-11
Posts 9 |
"Quite the reverse, I have seen that he or she is keen to write and I have sought to stamp out bad habits and point the way to better ones." Hmm, me (he) thanks you. "might have realised that if he or she posted a further almost identically flawed poem withing a few days" I mentioned that I had written it previously, I simply wanted a synopsis on this one as well- which is aimed to a different topic (which I thought people would be analyzing the meaning of the poem, yet quite the opposite...). One of your previous scruples was that the Sonnet 1 read bumpily, I felt that this one was less bumpy, for example. "Then ok, right at the end, I poked a little mild fun, hardly violently offensive" Honestly, the mild offense would have been interpreted more as "mild" and less an "offense" had there been, for example, a smiley face there. A seemingly semantic difference... Concerning the "tough love" you show in your post, such a conclusion is ambiguous. "Dead Death versus Overthrown Death" And death shall be no more; death, thou shalt die- Holy Sonnet X (John Donne) I realize that I was told to forget the dead poets from long ago, but (as I said) I wrote this previously. "Do you mean “to be met with untold riches” or “to be with untold riches adorned” or neither?" Well either of the phrases you suggested works, as a result, I supposed that the line I used would work as well... "No, I am merely advocating that you try to write in comprehensible English and in an unstilted way" Great point: Write poetry more personally Though I contend that anyone with a dictionary and an open mind could interpret the poem, and hence it is comprehensible. "I didn’t mean to be offensive and I am sorry you interpreted it that way. By the way did you like the poem I provided the link to?" Well, you're brutally honest (stress the brutal ), which can lead a person to believe that your post is deconstructive (to be completely honest that was my initial perception...). And yes, I did enjoy the link.One question: Someone said that I am doing something difficult with a majority of my written poems being sonnets. What were past poets doing before "moving up" to sonnets? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
quote: I once, and mistakenly, believe that metered and rhymed verse was more difficult to write than free-verse and other less structured forms. It simply is not true ... all poetry ... all good poetry, at any rate, is equally difficult to write, but for different reasons. Sonnets are convenient ... the metrical requirements are straightforward, as is the rhyme scheme, number of lines, position of thematic turn, etc., etc., etc. All you have to do is pen your "little song" in a manner marginally consistent with the conventions of sonnet writing. Kinda like coloring inside the lines. Now I believe writing in verse is an excellent exercise to help you train your ear to meter, first to the heartbeat of iambic meter. Once you are familiar with this basic beat, then you will be able to hear how variations change the way a poem reads ... how the trochee rushes you forward or gives the line, when placed at the beginning, gives it a "strong" start. Attention to sound is just as important in free-verse. In one sense, the poet is relieved of the task of "coloring inside the lines", but on the other hand, the poet is faced with the considerable task of deciding where the lines should be. Are you starting with harder forms? No. But you are starting in a form that will help you "hear" poetry better. And as your "poetic ear" develops, so will your ability to write (and read) poetry. Keep working at it ... it took me at least four sonnets before I finally got it right ... and only technically right at that. Good luck. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (09-14-2002 07:10 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I think the classic forms are important, if not vital, even to those who write more modern poetry. The villanelle and terzanelle, for example, teach the power of repetition as few other tools can do. The turn of the sonnet, when mastered, clarifies narrative skills that are often only partly understood from a lifetime of reading. Perhaps more importantly, I think the sometimes stifling structure of classical forms teaches us to look for the hidden structure in modern poetry (it's always there) and, when necessary, adjust it to better communicate. I also think the classic poets are important, more so than even the forms. I wouldn't try to mix my own paints the way da Vinci did, but I can certainly learn a lot from the way he applied them. Similarly, I wouldn't try to learn English from Shakespeare, but I can think of no one more capable to teach me how to use it powerfully. Those who ignore the classics handicap themselves to no end. Still, like everything else, emulation of the classics can go too far. I have to agree that this sonnet is unnecessarily convoluted, sacrificing meaning to experimental technique. I'm sure you're right, that anyone with a dictionary and open mind could interpret the poem, but that's not really the question. The question, instead, is - would they? Expecting the reader to do their share of the work is valid. Making work for them, by too liberal a use of poetic license, probably isn't. What do I mean by too liberal a use of poetic license? Combining meter, rhyme, and common sentence structure is a difficult task if we are still to retain the all-important Message we want to communicate. And it IS all-important. It's the only reason to write. Change the message and we defeat the reason for the poem. But the classical forms don't really let us change meter or rhyme either, at least not if we want to maintain the classic integrity. So that leaves us with only sentence structure that can be changed, and THAT is what I mean by poetic license. If common sentence structure is " adjective noun verb," then poetic license allows us to write "noun adjective verb" if it helps us maintain meter or rhyme. But here's the rub. The minute you do that, you remind the reader he's reading a poem and that detracts from the feeling and message you are trying to impart. He has to mentally shift gears to hang on to the message. You're going to find a few modern writers who claim, not without some justification, that shuffling parts of speech that way is just lazy writing. There is always a better way, they claim, if the writer works hard enough to find it. Those are the few, but even the many will still use it only reluctantly and only very rarely. Maybe once every ten or twenty poems? I can't even begin to imagine any modern writer doing it more than once in a single poem. And how many times do you shuffle sentence structure in the sonnet? That's what I mean about too liberal a use of poetic license. You have sacrificed meaning to meter and rhyme, and that's something you won't find even in classical poetry. They knew it had to be the other way around. Learning to write poetry is hard work and, in my opinion, no one will work that hard unless they enjoy it. If sonnets are something you enjoy, then I see no reason that shouldn't be where you start. It is harder, if only because the rules are more strict. More importantly, though, you should be warned up-front that meter and rhyme are NOT poetry. They're just part of those stricter rules I mentioned. |
||
|
Robtm1965 Member
since 2002-08-20
Posts 263 |
"So that leaves us with only sentence structure that can be changed, and THAT is what I mean by poetic license. If common sentence structure is " adjective noun verb," then poetic license allows us to write "noun adjective verb" if it helps us maintain meter or rhyme. But here's the rub. The minute you do that, you remind the reader he's reading a poem and that detracts from the feeling and message you are trying to impart. He has to mentally shift gears to hang on to the message. You're going to find a few modern writers who claim, not without some justification, that shuffling parts of speech that way is just lazy writing. There is always a better way, they claim, if the writer works hard enough to find it. Those are the few, but even the many will still use it only reluctantly and only very rarely. Maybe once every ten or twenty poems? I can't even begin to imagine any modern writer doing it more than once in a single poem. And how many times do you shuffle sentence structure in the sonnet? That's what I mean about too liberal a use of poetic license. You have sacrificed meaning to meter and rhyme, and that's something you won't find even in classical poetry. " This long copy and paste quote bears a repetition. Thank goodness for someone who can put it so much more clearly than me. And more tactfully too. Thank you Ron. |
||
|
geenabee Member
since 2002-09-10
Posts 59NC--USA |
Wow! You guys went easy on MY posting!! I like classical sonnets, and I like Aquarius' attempts to "emulate" the great poets! As my grandmother used to say, there's nothing new, everybody just forgets about the old stuff for awhile. I did think THIS sonnet was a bit verby and languagey and I agree that perhaps Aquarius should try writing a "modernized sonnet" in a more accessible language. I, of course, don't have an English degree, nor do I possess a stunning intellect... so my opinions are probably biased by my experience with working-class poetry. Just wanted to 'spress meself! Thanks for submitting Aq...and glad to read ya, Geenabee |
||
|
Severn Member Rara Avis
since 1999-07-17
Posts 7704 |
'working-class' poetry gbee? Oooooh that's a loaded term. Poetic ability, skill, talent etc really doesn't rely on having a degree. Perhaps talent can be enhanced, trained and focused though a degree. But really, any person with poetic talent can be trained to produce scintillating stuff. Some of the greatest poets/writers of our time haven't received any academic training. If you want examples I can produce them. K |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Aquarius, there is absolutely no reason why you should give up or quit writing sonnets. I am an admitted traditionalist who does not agree with the butchering of sonnets, or any traditional form, as is often blessed by some modern poets. I mean if you take away the meter first, then you take away the rhyme pattern and, as was suggested, you don't even have 14 lines, then how in hell can you still call it a sonnet. There, in a nutshell, is my biased opinion. Yes, I agree with occasional small variances with the form but, if you seriously want to learn sonnet writing, then you should start out by learning it right. There is no better place, IMHO, that Shakespeare to do that. Of course, he wrote English sonnets. More specifically he wrote what we now call Shakespearean or Elizabethan sonnets. There are other forms, the Italian being only one. But the variations a small. Shakespeare is probably the best starting point. When you then try to write, it is advisable to write in modern language. The dead poets wrote that way not because it sounded more poetic but because that was the language of their time. Today we would not say "thou knowest the way of the word." Instead it would more likely come out, "you know how to write." Of course this is all just MHO so take it for what it is worth. BTW, I did not mean to imply that I disagreed with Rob's advice in my earlier comment. To the contrary, he was pretty accurate. I only took exception to his presentation. Pete Never express yourself more clearly than you can think - Niels Bohr [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (09-18-2002 01:02 PM).] |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
