Dear Mike,
I don't want you to get the impression I dismissed your poem out of hand
because of the vocabulary.
There's nothing wrong in the idea of playing with the different attitudes
between Courtly love and modern love, but the fact is you haven't done this.
You've just written a sonnet in the 'antique' style, without exploring
anything. The mere fact of putting the words 'we moderns' in the closing
couplet is not good enough -that should have been dealt with as the argument
of the poem, not just tacked on.
In fact, Chaucer was poking fun at the silliness of the Courtly Love
tradition in his day, but there you go.
If you want to do something with this idea, make it funny, make it cynical,
whatever, but I think you have to do more that produce a weak imitation of
an olde worlde love sonnet.
A thought,-how about writing a sonnet in the Courtly Love tradition, but
using very modern and raunchy language?
Kind regards,
grasshopper
>From: Mike Horwood <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: The Pennine Poetry Works
>Subject: Re. Courtly love - Christina, Bob, Sally, Ryfkah
>Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2002 17:11:58 +0200
>
>Hello All
> Thanks for your comments. All feedback is welcome, including
>negative. Iīm not bothered if it might sound a bit `brutalī as Christina
>mentioned, I know itīs intended to be helpful, as it is. This one seems to
>have provoked mixed reactions, but more negative than positive.
>The first question is why did I use these archaic words? Partly because I
>wanted to see if it was possible. Secondly, because, like Sally, I just
>like the sound of the words - vassalage and performing my ambassage sound
>great to me. And most important from a poetic point of view, I judged those
>words to be appropriate to the subject, the medieval tradition of courtly
>love.
>Next, was I trying to write a 16 c. sonnet?. No, I wasnīt. I know that I
>would fail in such an attempt. I am not an expert on 16c. literature but I
>think the sonnet I wrote does not resemble a sonnet that a 16c. sonneteer
>would ever have written. Apart from the content, the final couplet is
>intended to root the poem firmly in the present. Itīs intended for a modern
>audience.
>Then, why did I write it? I am interested in how people in different ages
>have thought and felt differently to how we do. I wanted to draw a
>comparison between the medieval tradition of courtly love and modern
>attitudes to love - what it is / should be. Of course, the poem is not a
>dissertation on the cultural values of the middle ages and Iīm not even
>sure how realistic the literary conventions of romantic courtly love were.
>Nor does it matter. I only wanted to use some aspects of those conventions
>to set beside the way we think and feel today. I felt that made the poem
>modern, but given the content, it seemed admissible to use an archaic style
>and diction. It may not be such a radical question, either. I think I
>remember hearing a pop song sometime with the refrain `slave to loveī. How
>far one wants the slavery to go depends on the reader.
>Finally, Christina found the sonnet technically flawed. As I mentioned I
>was not trying to write a replica of a 16c. sonnet. I imagine my line
>breaks are not what would have pleased a 16 c reader. The rhyme scheme is
>Shakesperian, of course. Beyond that, it may be technically weak, a series
>of phrases badly tacked together. I can see how it might read like that.
>So much for the explanation. My project seems to have fallen flat. Most
>readers seem to be either distanced or simply turned off by the archaic
>style and diction. Oh well.
>
>
>Best wishes, Mike
>
>
>
,
_________________________________________________________________
STOP MORE SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
|
