what, "most of" & "inev-"? I don't think so.
and I think it's pointless to call something a sonnet if you're not
going to utilise the structural rules which make the form powerful.
the conceptual framework can be applied to anything, there's nothing
that explicit conceptually that makes sonnets any different from other
forms of poetry -- it's all about form, that's what I say. the lack of
this utilisation is part of the reason why I don't always like Hal's
takes on the form.
the rhyme scheme I did notice though, good show there.
and before someone says it, no I don't think it's shallow to focus on
a form's technical nature. in rule-based forms like the sonnet, it's
what holds its spirit together!
KS
On 22/01/2008, Douglas Barbour <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> nah, that's exactly what I like about it, & she was going for a rhyme,
> kasper....
>
> Not sure exact pentameter is,um, necessary....
>
> Doug
> On 22-Jan-08, at 10:38 AM, kasper salonen wrote:
>
> >
> > the better idea is to just keep it as it is, just correcting weird
> > enjambments like "inev- / itable" -- I don't know what you were going
> > for there.
>
> Douglas Barbour
> [log in to unmask]
>
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/
>
> Latest book: Continuations (with Sheila E Murphy)
> http://www.uap.ualberta.ca/UAP.asp?LID=41&bookID=664
>
> Nothing I'd read
> prepared me for a body this unfair.
>
> John Newlove
>
|