White Lady, for Essorant and Grinch

How to Join	Member's Area	Private Library	Search	Sanctuary		Login
Main Forums	Discussion	Tech Talk	Mature Content	Archives	A home without a wall, Our haven without ends, A circle we all call Our Family of Friends!

oceanvu2
Senior Member

since 2007-02-24

Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA

0 posted 2007-11-02 04:47 PM

Hi Ess -- I'm sorry I missed your contest deadline. I thought the discussion got pretty silly, but the intent was totally admirable, if quixotic, but then, I think we both tilt at windmills.

Taking you seriously, I submit to C/A a sonnet.  I gotta admit this sort of thing does not exactly roll off my tongue, so I gave it the head-sweat you requested.

Grinch:  I also offer the poem below in reference to your comments about fitting words to form.  This is that.  And yeesh, I think it includes a metaphor mixed among the similies.

WHITE LADY

Just as this orchid blooms each twenty years
So Love, unbid, returned at length to wake
The fond remembrance of a youth and make,
In middle age, a fool of one whose prayers
Were long thought answered with a no, and tears
Long dried, returned as joyous dew to slake
In rain, the dormant floral thrust which breaks
With fecund force his hollow, fallow fears.

Oh Love, how can you live so unespeid
Amid the weeds and tumult of the field?
Why hide your bloom so long in piquant pose?
The pain engendered, must this be the price
To prove that love deferred,  thought lost, might yield
Exquisitness beyond the simple rose?

Getting (physically) better all the time.  Jim

[This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (11-03-2007 11:18 AM).]

oceanvu2
Senior Member

since 2007-02-24

Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA

1 posted 2007-11-04 04:01 PM

Hi Merry Pipsters! I'm seriously wondering why no one has called me out on this. It's a Petrachian sonnet, true to form, and truly wretched.

I'm leading with my chin here.

I was hoping it might open up some thoughts on what makes good formal poetry and what makes bad formal poetry.

It follows Petrach's rhyme scheme, more or less scans, follows a single thought, and has a metaphor -- writer's block and Muse. It is also a factually incorrect bit of sing-song drivel. It fits with the spirit of the old "Best of Bad Hemingway" competition. Which doesn't mean it's easy to do. It takes a bit of crazy patience.

I think that the ability to recognize what is "bad" is as important as the ability to recognize what is "good," and why.

Any thoughts?

Iron jawed Jim

Brad
Member Ascendant

since 1999-08-20

Posts 5705
Jejudo, South Korea

2 posted 2007-11-04 04:46 PM

quote:
It's a Petrachian sonnet, true to form, and truly wretched.

I was just waiting for someone else to say it.

With that said, I see nothing wrong with writing bad sonnets -- just so long as we know they are bad.

Anybody up for a bad sonnet challenge?

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean

since 2000-02-02

Posts 27738

3 posted 2007-11-04 05:06 PM

*laughing*

That sounds like fun (but rather redundant in my case.)

I think it should be pointed out that it would be poor form (er...no pun intended?) to nominate others, though.

*sputtering*

And this has nothing to do with anything, but it's a great day to be in New Orleans.

(Geaux Tigers. Geaux Saints.)

Sonnet? Neaux Way.

And Jim? Yer a funny guy.

"fecund force"

That's gonna stick with me yanno.

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

4 posted 2007-11-05 01:06 AM

I sometimes may not tell what is serious or not with you or what you write. If you truly thought your sonnet were "wretched" why had you posted it?

I didn't think it was very unwell done at all. The main focus of the competition was meter and it turns out that the meter in your poem appears to be perfect.

oceanvu2
Senior Member

since 2007-02-24

Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA

5 posted 2007-11-05 01:51 PM

Hi Essorant! Sometimes I don't understand me either, and sometimes I just miss the mark with my "examples."

I posted it because I thought it was in the spirit of your competition.  In that spirit, it does represent an integrid use of word selection and thought toward rhyme, meter, and a specific form.

On the other hand, it's a really bad poem.  It may not be "unwell done."  If anything, it is overbaked, which is more to the point.

Attention to mechanics doesn't make bad poetry "better," nor good poetry "worse" in and of themselves.  There seems, to me, a lot more to it than tacking words to a grid.  That you find the meter to be "on" lends, I think, credence to my point.

I don't believe that I can write a better bad sonnet than this, though others certainly can, have and do.  (The name James Merrill floats up, though I can't swear he, in his formal mode, specifically wrote sonnets. I'm rambling here.)

I know we both appreciate form.  I don't think we are going to agree on why, or what constitutes formality.

Also, I HATE it when I take myself seriously, then just go ahead and take myself seriously again.  Bad habit.

Best, Jim

[This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (11-05-2007 07:30 PM).]

oceanvu2
Senior Member

since 2007-02-24

Posts 1066
Santa Monica, California, USA

6 posted 2007-11-05 06:36 PM

Oh, and Ok, here's an example of the referential madness included in the "White Lady:"

"By studying the anatomy of the flower structure and the anatomy of an insect, it is possible to identify the pollinator in question. Charles Darwin once famously did this with a particular species of orchid, Angraecum sesquipadale, a stunningly white Madagascan bloom, which has a nectar spur with a ridiculous 300 mm length. He hypothesized an insect with a matching gargantuan proboscis as the vector - the problem was that no insect had ever been found with such John Holmesesque proportions, almost double what had previously been observed. The scientific community thought him once again mad. It was not until after his death that the stunningly endowed Hawk moth (Xanthopan morgani predicta - notice the specific epithet) was found, and Darwin was vindicated - again."

This is from the article "Ghost Orchid" at Everything2.com.

Seriously, no one in their right mind outside of orchid freaks and Darwin specialists would likely have referential access to this bit of trivia.  The allusion is one of the things which kills the "White Lady" poem by making it all but totally obscure.

And the poem presents no earthly reason to track the allusion down.  It changes the import of some of the poem's words, but, so what?

The conscious use of this sort of arcane allusion is truly tilting at windmills.  The point here is, if no one can be expected to gather what a poem is actually talking about, how does structure help?

The questions raised go beyond this into the area of personal, or biographical, allusions.  Does "spilling one's guts" in personal poems amount to poetry?  Most often, IMAO, not.  Does it make a writer feel better?  Probably.  So what?

If it were me, I might also try to beat the hell out of THAT notion, but I stress the MOST OFTEN part.

Raising-orchids-in-Santa-Monica, Jim

[This message has been edited by oceanvu2 (11-05-2007 07:10 PM).]

Essorant
Member Elite

since 2002-08-10

Posts 4769
Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada

7 posted 2007-11-06 01:20 AM

The point here is, if no one can be expected to gather what a poem is actually talking about, how does structure help?

The same way the wording, beat, rhythm, rhyme, etc of a song may make a song enjoyable, even if the lyrics are nonsensical. What we say is important, but in poetry, it is how we say it that is even more important.

Every art has subjects, ideas, etc. but regulating and specially controlling the rhythm of language to artful structure and grace is what uniqueliest distinguishes songcraft and poetry from all other things under the stars. A sensical idea and content can not be a song or poem on its own. But a musical way of saying nonsense can be.

[This message has been edited by Essorant (11-06-2007 04:45 PM).]

	⇧ top of page ⇧
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.