»
Archives
»
Critical Analysis #1
»
If I Should Wake
| Critical Analysis #1 |
|
If I Should Wake |
|
Joyce Johnson
since 2001-03-10
Posts 9912Washington State 
|
(Since my poetry has been pretty much ignored on the other forum, the last few days, I am daring to enter one here for critiquing, to see what I may be doing wrong. This was my first attempt at a sonnet). If I Should Wake If I should wake to find my loved one gone, No longer lying gently by my side, How could I find the will to carry on? Were it not better that I should have died? If I should find him only in my dreams And days bring loneliness and misery; Then I would long for night and soft moonbeams And sweet dreams would my only solace be. A life without my love, no life at all, But mere existence, thinking of the day He left me only dreams and sweet recall Of how it was before he went away. But I awake and reach for him at dawn And count the many years since he's been gone. By: Joyce 12/02/2000 [This message has been edited by Joyce Johnson (edited 03-22-2001).] |
||
| © Copyright 2001 Joyce I Johnson - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
The_Rose Junior Member
since 2001-03-10
Posts 10 |
Your first attempt is quite good, I should think. You've followed rules this form of poetry requires. From here it is more your desires that should rule what you write. I like to work on the sense of the poem, while others like their images more or so it seems to me. Some here would ask you to look at the stress laid on the words, and to align the "feet" in a way that makes the line sound more smooth. You might attend to "feet" when you write more, when you feel you are ready to take on the added work smoothness (feet) shall require. By writing you give comfort to your thoughts, and have the chance your skill with words advance. The Rose |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Hi Joyce, I see you are new to CA. I'd like to offer you a big welcome to the group. We try to have fun here while learning from our friends how we might improve our writing skills. You may have heard otherwise in some other forums, talk of ogres and such. I have looked at some of your other poetry in other forums and I like your style. BTW, I can't give any clue as to why you might be ignored other than the fact that Open moves so fast. One needs to become "established" in that group to remain near the top long enough to get any attention. I think it just takes time and lost of posting, emphasizing responses to others. Now for this specific effort. This is indeed a good first sonnet. You have tackled an old subject but have treated it in a way which does not seem old, a good thing which can be very difficult to accomplish. Some may call it too sentimental but I don't get that impression. I think it has just the right amount to give the reader the proper sense of loss and longing without being melodramatic. I do have a couple of suggestions to offer. Rose makes a valid point regarding content versus form. But I think the sonnet is a bit different. It is an old and well established form which is pretty strictly defined. I don't mean to say that content is less important in a sonnet. No poem can be memorable unless it has something useful, interesting or important to say. But if you are going to write sonnets, I think you should learn to do it "properly" first. That is, learn to write according to the accepted constraints. After you become adept at that you can try taking some liberties. By that time you likely will have a feel for where and how a variation would be both effective and acceptable. Now, I have already said that I like this sonnet so I'll get down to the specifics of what I think might be improved. Keep in mind, this is all JMHO. In L2 (line 2) softly seems the wrong adverb. I think gently better expresses your intent. In L3 wherewithal is spelled wrong. Also that line is a sentence fragment. It should read: Would I the HAVE THE wherewithal to carry on? but, of course, that messes up the meter. I'll leave the solution to you. L7 has a meter problem. To me it scans thusly: Then I / would LONG / for NIGHT / and its / MOON-beams whereas proper IP makes me try to stress ITS and BEAMS. Moonbeams is obvious but its may not be. It may help to just read the line as normal speach. The small word, its, would never be stressed in this context. Therefore it seems unnatural and therefore forced to have the line as is. Just an observation on L8, I scan it thus: And SWEET / DREAMS would / my ON/ly SOL/ace BE. Notice the trochaic second foot. To me, this is an acceptable variation because the content dictates it and it sounds natural. In short, I think that line enhances rather than detracts. On final suggestion relates to the closing couplet. These two lines are commonly thought to be the most important in a sonnet. As such, a perfect rhyme is highly desirable there. Near rhymes may be acceptable in the body, if used sparingly, but usually not in the couplet. One and gone are sight rhymes but their endings just don't sound the same. Therefore they are not perfect rhymes. Although you might get by with them in other lines, I would really like to see you change the wording to find a better rhyme here. I forgot to mention that I like your subtle turn at line 9. Well, I was going to say more about that but suddenly had a senior moment so I'll just say that I enjoyed your sonnet and hope to see much more of your writing here in CA. Thanks, Pete |
||
|
Joyce Johnson
since 2001-03-10
Posts 9912Washington State |
Thanks to both of you so much, for taking the time to examine this sonnet. I might say I wrote only from observing other sonnets, not with any great idea of what I should be doing. I have been writing poetry for less than two years; since my daughter gave me a computer and word pocessor to play with. I am surprised whenever anyone admires anything I write for I consider myself very much a novice, but I do try to learn. I will print your answers and any more that I may receive and try to put your suggestions into practice.Thank you, Joyce PS I have edited it and corrected the typo's (I really knew how to spell wherewithal) and have tried to put some of Pete's suggestions into practice. I need more instruction on feet, before I do much about that. thanks Joyce [This message has been edited by Joyce Johnson (edited 03-22-2001).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Hello again Well first off, I like your changes. By substituting soft for its in L7, I can now read it without feeling like you sacrificed the meter. Somehow it lets me now scan the line like Then I / would LONG / for NIGHT / and SOFT / MOON-BEAMS which I find acceptable enough, particularly since you have another variation in the next line. They sort of go together pleasingly. Your altered couplet is now excellent. The rhyme is nice as is the meter. The wording also seems to convey are stronger thought. I do still have a problem with L3 though. It has no predicate that I can see. Consider changing would to have. See how that sounds and looks. It works grammatically although it might have a slight problem with tense, considering the other woulds and shoulds in that quatrain. To me though it seems much better than would. Also, I didn't notice it before but the semicolon at the end of L2 needs to be a comma. Otherwise you have created 2 sentence fragments. Well, JMHO. Nice work here. Pete |
||
|
Joyce Johnson
since 2001-03-10
Posts 9912Washington State |
Might this be better? The stress seems to be okay this way. Actually I think I have seen (would I) used in some old poetry in this manner, meaning would I have, but since I can't remember where I have seen it I better change it. I know it's wrong in common usuage. Thanks for the help. Joyce [This message has been edited by Joyce Johnson (edited 03-22-2001).] |
||
|
Not A Poet Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885Oklahoma, USA |
Joyce, IMHO, that is just lovely. But I am disappointed that you are not getting some other opinions. Always good to have more than one viewpoint, you know. Pete |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
