»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #1
»
Best Friends Or Lovers
| Critical Analysis #1 |
|
Best Friends Or Lovers |
|
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
I think this is my last sonnet for a while. Best Friends Or Lovers You know you're so much more to me than just a friend And though I don't ask all, I want all you can give; You smile and ask of me to try to understand, You can't give more - we both have other lives to live. Yes my best friend, you have become, its true my dear, And spoiling that would be a tragic loss indeed, But still, subduing these emotions, I do fear I just don't have the strength of will that I would need. Oh, like a fool, in love with my best friend I fell, And love, if we can't share those feelings in some ways Then I misread your heart - perhaps my own as well - A charming flight of fancy, in my twilight days. Though I'm forlorn if lovers we can't really be, My love, you'll always be dear friend and goddess to me. Pete |
||
| © Copyright 2000 Pete Rawlings - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Hawk183 Member
since 1999-12-24
Posts 130 |
This a classic and tragic situation...though it is very hard to see the "classic" when it is new in ones life. You expressed the sense of loss very well, but at the same time made it know that the friendship, the love, would not falter, regardless of the outcome...very touching piece! Hawk |
||
|
roxane Senior Member
since 1999-09-02
Posts 505us |
i think that everyone has been in your situation, but apparently it is tormenting you quite a bit, as this has been the subject lately. i think it's a pretty good sonnet, not as good as your last, but it still has some good lines in it. i don't like the couplet as much as i liked the other one. i think that it's the word "goddess" though, because i think that word is overused a lot in poetry. Oh, like a fool, in love with my best friend I fell, And love, if we can't share those feelings in some ways Then I misread your heart - perhaps my own as well - this is a very good part, it's like a sudden out pouring of emotions, very strong. but, pete, do not give up hope yet. my boyfriend and i were "good friends" for some time. i hope it all works out for you. |
||
|
John Foulstone Member
since 2000-01-01
Posts 100Australia |
Hey, Pete - A Six-Foot Sonnet! Interesting. Can't fault rhyme, but meter breaks occasionally; Roxane is right about goddess, which also breaks the meter. As for the lady, don't give up. It's always easier to make a lover out of a friend than a friend out of a lover! It's never too late to have a happy childhood ... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Pete, Traditionally, the sonnet is a form for love poetry that concentrates on persuasion; you write to the person and try to get them to fall in love with you. I like the twist here on that tradition (which I don't follow anyway). Curious if you gave this to your friend? I'm with everyone else on goddess . Thanks, Brad |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Hi All, Hawk, Roxanne, John and Brad; It appears that I came off a little too morbid or broken-hearted this time. I'm sorry for that. Please don't feel so sorry for my personal situation; I didn't intend that at all. But I do thank you for taking an interest. I'm sure you are all correct in that "goddess" is over used in poetry. But this sonnet is just one of a series and goddess has been somewhat of a recurring theme throughout, which you may have noticed in some of the others I have posted. So, I included it here anyway. I knew it breaks the meter but I believe I can safely refer you to Shakespeare's sonnets as justification. He is surely considered one of the masters of English sonnets and the vast majority of his have at least one significant meter break. And yes, Brad, I did although not in this exact form. I am learning from the CA forum  and correcting and improving my work (and works) as I do so. My thanks to all you guys and gals. Since finding Passions, I have met many outstanding poets and great teachers. I'm starting to feel like part of the family now and have found many new friends here. Love you all, Pete |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Pete: Your sonnets are improving, my friend. This one tells that age old "just want to be friends" story and you communicate the sadness of the situation very well. About meter breaks: I think it is okay (or atleast acceptable) to substitute different metrical feet for iambic feet in rigid poetic forms but I think this is best done sparingly and only when a specific effect is desired. I think Shakespeare probably had good reasons for all of the substituted feet. At any rate, I would guard against substituting an iambic foot (da-DUM) for a trochaic foot (DUM-da) without a good, specific reason. I don't have Shakespeare's sonnets infront of me but I do have Poe's Sonnet--To Science which begins: "Science! True daughter of Old Time thou art!" You'll notice that he begins the line with an accented syllable but he did so to evoke a specific effect. The naturally trochaic (again, DUM-da) "Science" is harder hitting than an iambic foot. If you go back and read Shakespeare I think you'll find many of his uses of varying metrical feet were for similar reasons to Poe's. What I would suggest is that you look at the places your meter breaks from the iambic and ask yourself whether this break enhances what you are trying to communicate or if it can be reworded to conform to the traditional format without losing the force of its meaning. These are only suggestions. Much of what I mentioned above I am passing along as I learn it myself so keep this in mind as you read my suggestions. Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Jim, your point is well taken that many times Shakespeare varied from the iambic foot for a specific effect. But here is sonnet 33, which I think is a pretty good example of one where it could be argued that the only effect presented is to suggest that a sonnet can be written in some other meter. XXXIII Full many a glorious morning have I seen Flatter the mountain-tops with sovereign eye, Kissing with golden face the meadows green, Gilding pale streams with heavenly alchemy; Anon permit the basest clouds to ride With ugly rack on his celestial face, And from the forlorn world his visage hide, Stealing unseen to west with this disgrace: Even so my sun one early morn did shine With all triumphant splendor on my brow; But out, alack! he was but one hour mine; The region cloud hath mask'd him from me now. Yet him for this my love no whit disdaineth; Suns of the world may stain when heaven's sun staineth. Now understand I don't present this as necessarily one of his best, but as one with multiple examples of meter variation. Line 1 is clearly anapestic and lines 2, 3, 4 and 8 can only be read as dactylic. They all have extra syllables which cannot be compressed out but must be pronounced. Also, line 14 has an extra syllable in "heaven's". And finally, two lines have female endings, which, of course, is not all that uncommon. There are many more which just have an extra syllable stuck in the middle of a line, like line 14 above. In fact, if you just open the book and select one at random, I estimate the odds are probably at least 3 to 1 that you will find at least one such line in it. But by just a quick scan this morning I was able to find this more outstanding example. Please don't think I'm trying to be a smart A about this or worse. I'm really not. I'm just trying to learn a little and improve my skills a little, that is if I have any to improve, and this is what I have seen to learn from. So, if I am off base here, just say so but try to explain why as I am a slooow learner. Thanks again to all. Pete |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Pete: I've been doing some reading on this subject and have found some interesting information. You are correct to point out that the syllable count for the first line of Sonnet XXXIII is not 10 and that some parts of it appear to be anapestic. At a casual glance the line appears to be broken up like this: Full MAN / -y a GLOR- / i-ous MORN- / -ing HAVE / i SEEN An article I have been reading by Edgar Allan Poe on versification (rhythm and rhyme in poetry) addresses these instances. "Many" (incidentally, a word used as an example by Poe) is to be considered one stressed beat in this sonnet as is "-ious" in "glorious". "Glorious", when broken down, appears to be naturally dactylic (DUM-da-da) but, I think, would fall under what Poe called a "bastard trochee". Notice the accent breakdown when this principle is applied: full MANY / a GLOR- / -ious MORN / -ing HAVE / i SEEN Now verse 2: FLAT-ter / the MOUNT- / ain-TOPS / with SOVE- / reign EYE, "Flatter" is a an example of a substituted trochaic beat I mentioned in my first reply. "Sovereign", I suspect, is another example of a "bastard trochee". Verse 3: KISS-ing / with GOLD- / -en FACE / the MEAD- / -ows GREEN, "Kissing", again, a trochaic beat subsituted for the iambus. Verse 4: GILD-ing / pale STEAMS / with HEAVEN- / -ly ALCH- / em-Y; Again, the substitute trochee. I think "heavenly" is arguably another example of the "bastard trochee", though less obvious to me than "glorious" and "sovereign" above because of having to sound out the "n" in "heavenly". Verse 8: STEAL-ing / un-SEEN / to WEST / with THIS dis-GRACE: Again, the substitute trochee in the first beat. I don't think you are being a smarta** here, Pete. I have been trying to figure out why Shakespeare seems to have "violated" the rules so often and my recent readings of papers by Edgar Allan Poe on versification have started to answer some of my questions. I am merely sharing what I have recently learned with you now and am not intending to come across as a know-it-all (as Philip might suggest).  Poe's article is entitled "Relating to Verse" or "Regarding Verse" or something like that. The reading is dry but very informative. If you can't find a copy online let me know and I will try to get a copy to you somehow. Good discussion! Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
jim (and not a poet)-- "I have been trying to figure out why Shakespeare seems to have "violated" the rules so often...." sonnet 33 is part of a 154-sonnet cycle. sometimes there is some specific textual reason for the "violations" (as you term them), but in many instances, i think they are there simply for interest and variety, much the same way mozart or beethoven might repeat a musical theme over a different rythym. shakespeare (or whoever the author of the sonnets was) was not the type of author to stick his readers with the same form repeated over and over and over again, 154 times. [This message has been edited by jenni (edited 01-11-2000).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Jim, as usual you make a persuasive and well founded argument. Must be your left-brain thing working again. And, again as usual, I thoroughly enjoy your analysis and comments. You have been a great help to me in the short time I have participated here. But this all seems somehow too complicated. I think I like Jenni's postulation better, but not to make light of your explanation in any way though. Thanks Jenni. But, it does seem to be pushing logic as well as language more than a little to claim that a multi-syllable word is to be considered one syllable. This seems to be purely so one can then claim that metric rules have not been violated. Now I agree that some such words can almost be pronounced as one syllable but this is certainly not always the case. Would it not be just as valid, if not more so, to say Shakespeare (or Poe) violated the rules of iambic meter as to say he violated the rules of pronunciation? Well, I don't know the proper answer to this. You surely have done your homework. I expect I can find the Poe writings you reference on line and will tackle that task later today. If not I will email you for your able assistance. I'm really more of a fan of Poe than Shakespeare anyway. Well thanks to both of you again. It's truly amazing what a novice, or beginner, can learn from the excellent poets on this forum. < !signature--> Pete [This message has been edited by Not A Poet (edited 01-11-2000).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jenni: I do not see why "specific textual reasons" and "variety" necessarily have to be distinct. More times than not, I suspect, Shakespeare had NOT "violated" the rules but, rather, used accepted textual tools ("bastard trochees and iambuses" and substitutions of trochaic for iambic feet) to introduce variety. Therefore, I do not see Shakespeare's variations as "violations" but as acceptible poetic practices. But, for whatever reasons, I think Shakespeare's sonnets remain decidedly iambic and his variations are purposeful rather than whimsical. Of course, I could be wrong. Pete: You got here before the edit. I emailed the link to you and I think you will find it fascinating. I am finding that poetry (especially the poetry of the greats) is more complicated than it is simple. For this reason I am a bit wary of the "easy" explanation, no offense intended toward the lovely and talented Jenni, of course. < !signature--> Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 01-11-2000).] |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
jim-- i didn't think it was an "easy" explanation. "why" any artist, especially one like shakespeare, does what he or she does is something i don't think can ever be explained. "how" he or she does it, perhaps, but not "why." especially with the sonnets, i see them as a group of 154 variations on love. why this one particular variation, or this one, or this one? i believe sometimes there are reasons specifically suggested in the text. other times, i think the writer gets intrigued by, say, the letter W, the way it looks on the page, and the way it sounds, and voila, we have a sonnet where the letter W goes beserk (#9). why? there's no reason suggested by the text of the sonnet that would give any special meaning or significance to words beginning with the letter W. it's simply something the author is trying, a variation, something he felt was interesting or amusing. now, why the letter W should be interesting or amusing to anyone is beyond me, but the thing is, that's not important. sometimes you just have to appreciate things for what they are. the same thing goes with these questions of meter, i think, jim. as you know, starting a line with a stressed syllable is a little more powerful than with an unstressed syllable. sometimes, i am sure, the author of the sonnets wanted to stress the beginning of the line or the poem to emphasize a point; other times, i think the metrical variations, like anything else, are there simply because the author found it interesting or amusing, that they lend texture or "spice." you can tear your hair trying to find a deeper reason, trying to find out "why", but does there have to be a deeper reason? the "spice" is what makes it "art," in my opinion. i do not believe the "variations" are MERELY the result of whimsey; neither do i believe, however, that they are ONLY the product of cold reason. where would be the fun in that? [This message has been edited by jenni (edited 01-11-2000).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jenni: Thanks (1) for explaining my mysterious loss of hair since poetry became a hobby and (2) for a differing perspective. But I must flatly disagree with your suggestion that cold reason is not fun. Seriously, I do suspect that, more times than not by an overwhelming margin, Shakespeare's variations are (1) either accomplished without violating the acceptable rules of verse or (2) he set the standard of acceptable variations of verse for future greats to follow. I agree that it is the "spice" that lends to a poem being forceful and/or passionate but I think there are a number of other factors that go into the consideration of it being "art". But why am I even taking the time to mention this to you? Nines times out of ten we only end up agreeing with one another anyway. Must be the common thread of legal reasoning we share, huh? This is fun, by the way. Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
jim-- geez, you shoulda been a lawyer, lol. a tax lawyer. consider this one: Let me not to the marriage of true minds Admit impediments. Love is not love Which alters when it alteration finds, Or bends with the remover to remove O no! it is an ever-fixed mark That looks on tempests and is never shaken; It is the star to every wandering bark, Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken. Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks Within his bending sickle's compass come: Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks, But bears it out even to the edge of doom. If this be error and upon me proved, I never writ, nor no man ever loved. there is no way you can read the first two lines as iambic pentameter. is iambic pentameter one of the 'rules' for sonnets? perhaps. is this an 'acceptable variation?' i guess it must be, since this is one of the more famous sonnets, but you'd be hard pressed to identify what it is, exactly, or how and when it could, as an acceptable variation, be repeated. anyway, perhaps here there is a reason for the lurching, uneven meter of the first two lines, in that it gives the ear an example of those impediments which are not to be admitted. ok, that's a theory. but look at the piece a little closer, and you see other lines, other 'variations' from the iambic pentameter rule: line 9 ("Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks"), and line 12 "But bears it out even to the edge of doom"), for example. now take a step back and consider the whole piece again, and ask, why? why would the writer mix, in a sonnet, of all things, all these lines that aren't iambic pentameter? i submit to you, my friend, that the writer simply thought it sounded better that way, lol. the metrical variations here are the 'spice' i was talking about earlier. i do agree that there is more to what makes something 'art' than the 'spice,' lol. but we've infringed long enough on pete's hospitality here at his poem's posting without getting into a debate on what is 'art.' lol thanks, pete...and, btw, i did enjoy your sonnet! jenni [This message has been edited by jenni (edited 01-11-2000).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jenni: Just like a lawyer to try to argue an exception to the rule as though it was the rule of law. lol. Don't have time now but I'll be back later. Pete: See what you started? < !signature-->Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 01-11-2000).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Thanks Jenni, And believe me, you two could never be considered as infringing on my hospitality or my poem. I absolutely love these discussions and I am, I believe, learning a great deal from them. Keep it up as long as you like. BTW Jim, I just finished reading Poe's paper and I understand what you were saying. But, by that same reasoning, I think maybe my "goddess" would be a bastard something or other. Geez, I meant the word, not the person.  Pete |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jenni & Pete: I told you I'd get back to this one. I hope I'm not boring everyone with this. LET me / NOT to / the MARR / iage of / TRUE MINDS Ad-MIT / im-PED / i-MENTS. / LOVE is / NOT love Which ALT- / ers WHEN / it ALT- / er - A / -tion FINDS, Or BENDS / with THE / re-MOV / -er TO / re-MOVE O NO! / it is / [<--double trochee] an EV- / er-FIX- / -ed(?) MARK That LOOKS / on TEMP- / -ests AND / is NEV- / -er SHAKE/ -en it IS / the STAR / to EV- / -ery WAND- / -ering BARK, Whose WORTH'S / un-KNOWN, / al-THOUGH / his HEIGHT / be TAK- / -en. love's NOT / time's FOOL, / though ROS- / -y LIPS / and CHEEKS With-IN / his BEND- / -ing SICK- / -le's COMP- / -ass COME: love ALT- / -ers NOT / with HIS/ brief HOURS / and WEEKS, But BEARS / it OUT / EV-en to [not sure here]/ the EDGE / of DOOM. If THIS / be ERR- / -or AND / up-ON / me PROVED, i NEV- / -er WRIT / nor NO / man EV- / -er LOVED. "there is no way you can read the first two lines as iambic pentameter." Yes, this is true. But the sonnet is decidedly iambic. "is this an 'acceptable variation?' i guess it must be, since this is one of the more famous sonnets, but you'd be hard pressed to identify what it is, exactly, or how and when it could, as an acceptable variation, be repeated." I disagree that I would be hard pressed to identify this. I may be wrong, but I read the last two feet of Line 1 as a double iamb. This is conventionally considered an acceptible substitution. Granted, Shakespeare may have been stretching the rules here a bit. Inverted feet are also acceptible, even though they usually appear at the beginning of lines. But you will notice that the inverted fourth foot of the second line is the beginning of a new sentence. This leads me to believe that this was deliberate. Accented "LOVE" yanks at the attention. But I think what is important to point out is that the sonnet is decidedly iambic."anyway, perhaps here there is a reason for the lurching, uneven meter of the first two lines, in that it gives the ear an example of those impediments which are not to be admitted." I agree that there is a reason for his choice of meter. "... i submit to you, my friend, that the writer simply thought it sounded better that way, lol. the metrical variations here are the 'spice' i was talking about earlier." I submit to you (lol -- lawyers! *exaggerated sigh*) that this is an over-simplification of Shakespeare's reason for writing this the way he did. Granted again, my scansion of the above might not be perfect but I think it is accurate enough to show that Shakespeare, inspite of the variations, deliberately and with specific intent (again lol), wrote a technically correct sonnet. Jenni, this was fun. We have to do this more often.< !signature--> Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 01-13-2000).] |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
jim-- you have, as usual, identified everything perfectly. none of this, however, explains "why" this particular sonnet, or any sonnet, is the way it is. under your definition, a 'technically correct' sonnet is a 14-line poem in iambic pentameter. except that sometimes it can be a 14-line poem in iambic pentameter but with a double trochee; or a 14-line poem in iambic pentameter with a bastard trochee or two; or a 14-line poem in iambic pentameter with the occasional inverted foot; or a 14-line poem in iambic pentameter with a double iamb; or a 14-line poem in iambic pentameter with any combination of these exceptions; or a 14-line poem in iambic pentameter with even further exceptions and combinations of exceptions as yet unidentified. what began all this, however, was your statement that you are trying to figure out WHY shakespeare seemed to break the rules so often. you now seem to argue, first, that he NEVER broke the rules (defined conveniently as the basic rule, with a ton of 'acceptable variations'), and second, that he plucked this or that arrow from the quiver of 'acceptable variations' always "deliberately and with specific intent." you take exception to my statement that -- sometimes -- the arrow of variation was chosen for purely artistic or 'cosmetic' reasons, if you will ("because it sounded better", in my earlier simplified phrase); that is, for reasons that do not serve an immediate textual or thematic purpose. i am not saying that shakespeare was a careless but 'lucky' writer, or that the 'variations' from the basic iambic pentameter rule are accidental. he was a genius, a technical master of deep and subtle intellect. but he was also an artist, and art thrives above and beyond the rules. as i recognized in one of my posts here, there is, perhaps, a specific reason why shakespeare chose to write the first line of that sonnet -- that particular line -- the way he did. but does there ALWAYS have to be a deep textual or thematic reason? again, look at the line "but bears it out even to the edge of doom." what are the textual or thematic reasons for the variations you've identified there? why is simply enhancing the sound or feel of the piece not a good reason? i don't think it cheapens shakespeare in any way to say that he valued art, as well as craft, and that sometimes he unharnessed one from service to the other. the sonnets: 'decidedly iambic'? yes, never any question there. shakespeare: just winging it? no, certainly not. shakespeare: logician ('reason's foe to whimsey'), or artist? you make the call, jim.... if only i could get paid to argue out here, with shakespeare as my client, lol. back to you, counselor. jenni |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jenni: I think we've beat this one to death and Pete is probably about to email us each a computer virus for all the email notifications to his post. Therefore, I offer my closing arguments. You wrote: "what began all this, however, was your statement that you are trying to figure out WHY shakespeare seemed to break the rules so often." To put this statement back into its proper context ( ), Shakespeare's seeming "violations" were what prompted me to figure out "why" they are not conventially regarded as violations."you now seem to argue, first, that he NEVER broke the rules (defined conveniently as the basic rule, with a ton of 'acceptable variations'), and second, that he plucked this or that arrow from the quiver of 'acceptable variations' always "deliberately and with specific intent." you take exception to my statement that -- sometimes -- the arrow of variation was chosen for purely artistic or 'cosmetic' reasons, if you will ("because it sounded better", in my earlier simplified phrase); that is, for reasons that do not serve an immediate textual or thematic purpose." My first exhibit is from Professor Timothy Steele, Professor of English at California University, Los Angelos, CA: "...iambic verse allows for a number of conventional variations. These include substitutions of inverted (i.e. trochaic) feet for iambic feet, especially at line beginnings of after midline pauses. Another common variant is the feminine [non-stressed] ending. ... But the key thing in English iambic verse is the fluctuation. And, generally, the practice of traditional iambic meter involves the poet's taking this basic alternating norm and modulating it internally. The poet works within and conforms to the one pattern, but does so in many and continually different ways." [Meter in English: A Critical Engagement ed. David Baker]. So what you describe as "convenient" is also "convention" which, in my opinion, makes my argument more "convincing". Secondly, I suspect you have not fully considered what was considered "art" in Shakespeare's day and how Shakespeare's understanding of "art" differed from the modern understanding of the definition of "art". I believe "good art" was measured against a more objective standard then, as opposed to the subjective standard prevalent today. Do I believe Shakespeare would have modulated the meter in some of his sonnets because it sounded better? Sure I believe that. But I believe that, a vast majority of the time, considering the historic context of his writings, Shakespeare conformed to the accepted conventional variations of iambic verse in his writings, particularly in his sonnets. With this I close my case for the jury's consideration. Again, lotsa fun, Jenni. And thanks, Pete, for lending us your courtroom. P.S. What makes you so sure Shakespeare would be YOUR client? And I'd do the work for him pro bono. P.S.S. And to Brad below, I think the trick to formalistic poetry is getting the "feel" and the "form" to flow well. Just an opinion. < !signature--> Jim "If I rest, I rust." - Martin Luther [This message has been edited by jbouder (edited 01-13-2000).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
One of the things that annoys me about a lot of formalist doctrine is the move from describing to prescribing what you do in poetry. We use iambic (or whatever), not because we have to, but because it creates a certain 'feel' to the poem that many of us like. Poe's arguments on 'glorious' and 'many' are ludicrous as I think 'ev'ry' and other stuff like that. He's starting from a rule book and then trying to force good poems into that petty little scheme. The question is never whether or not it follows the rules but whether it creates that'feel' or not. I'll say this again: You can do anything you want, even in formalist poetry; the question is not the rules but the 'feel'. How do you know the 'feel'. Haze said this earlier but I have to add a few points: You have to readandthenwritereadandthenwritereadandthenwritereadandthenwritereadandthenwrite. Even with that said, you'll always have people who disagree with you -- that's the fun part. On the cold reason debate: there's no such thing -- the heart and the mind are one and if you here anyone saying they are logical, or objective; or free from logic, or 'only' write from their soul, know that they probably don't quite mean that, indeed can't quite mean that. Trying to keep me out of the fun, are you? Brad |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Brad: I would never do that to you, Brad. I'm your Frankenstein monster, after all. Jim P.S. I was wondering when you would show your face! |
||
|
Poertree Senior Member
since 1999-11-05
Posts 1359UK |
Good heavens ... what am I missing? lol P or should that be "Look what I missed" [This message has been edited by Poertree (edited 01-13-2000).] |
||
|
jenni Member
since 1999-09-11
Posts 478Washington D.C. |
sorry to wake you up philip... that was jim banging his fist on the table. james-- i think we are perhaps arguing two different cases here. i absolutely agree with your quoted expert, and have no problem saying shakespeare's 'variations' were indeed, 'acceptable variations', conforming to the conventions of elizabethean sonnet-writing. (my use of 'convenient' was intended to be flippant, i was not suggesting that you, somehow, were making all this up, lol.) i thought we were debating the role of thematically-driven vs. more ethereally artisitc reasons for the variations. you admit that shakespeare sometimes varied a line from iambic pentameter simply because it sounded better; at this point that's good enough for me. (it sounds like your 'expert' is saying the same thing i am with his talk of 'modulations', i could be wrong though.) good debate, jim. and brad, i agree with you 100% here. [This message has been edited by jenni (edited 01-13-2000).] |
||
|
warmhrt Senior Member
since 1999-12-18
Posts 1563 |
Brad, (see, I'm being good) I almost don't believe this, but your words could have come out of my mouth. Like you said so well, it's the "feel" of the end product that's important ... the experience of the entire piece. I'm sure all writer's have that "sense" when things are just right, when everything fits, and the words flow over the tongue. If one who writes does not have that sense, then they have to learn to develop it. As Brad so aptly put it, rules don't matter. You can follow all of the so-called poetic rules to the letter, but if the piece doesn't have that experience through which to take the reader, then it is nothing. P.S. Pete, I thoroughly enjoyed your work. Great job, and I'd leave "goddess" in there, if that's what you want to say. [This message has been edited by warmhrt (edited 01-13-2000).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Geez, for a while there, I was afraid maybe I had died and returned to that former life when I managed Information Systems for a large law firm. Whew, you guys can really put out the paper.If I recall correctly, the original question was whether goddess is overused in poetry. But in short order this became a question, instead, of whether the meter break it created in the last line was acceptable. At this point, I'm not sure this question has been answered. On second thought I should say the question has been answered many times but in many mutually exclusive ways. But I'm not sure I understand any of them now.  Oh Wait Again! Now it seems the talented Warmhrt has replied. Her answer seems so much easier to understand and accept than the others. She says "leave goddess in there if that's what you want to say." Well, that's what I want to say. So, armed now with her permission, I believe I will just leave it in there.  Now, I seriously want to thank all of you who have participated in the critique of this and all my poems. Jim and Jenni, I know you have had a lot of fun with this dialog. And I have really enjoyed being in the audience. Also, I have learned more from the experience. At the beginning, I said this would be my last sonnet for a while. Well, this one has been so much fun that I think I will post another one before going on to something else for a while. Soooo, thanks again everyone. Pete |
||
|
SnglDad Member
since 2000-01-08
Posts 115Seattle area |
Keep up the good work [This message has been edited by SnglDad (edited 01-16-2000).] |
||
|
Joanna T. Lopez Junior Member
since 2000-02-02
Posts 33El Paso, Texas |
WOW! I was thinking that I would just give you a little of my thoughts on this piece, but by the time I rolled through all the chatter, I kind of , you know I was sucked in. Very interesting, the variations that these other writers have in getting their point across. After scrolling along and enjoying all of it, I can with "feeling" say that I will sit with Brad and Warmhrt on this one. It's sweet, and it's just fine the way it is, emotional w/much "feeling". I must say though, I would certainly be leery on doing this sort of thing again. See what you started? Thanks for the nice welcome, W/"feeling" Joanna T. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
