I swear I'm not being cantankerous here, but I think the inev-/itable
linebreak is gimmicky.
KS
On 23/01/2008, Bob Marcacci <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> i wanted the first line to end on "Some" thus lengthening the line and
> making it begin to mirror the bottom half more... longer beginning and
> closing lines... shorter middle lines... i thought the shape more
> important...
>
> i also second Douglas... i really like the inev-/itable break... i think it
> supports the word itself as well as the meaning of the larger phrase about
> the tide... it should also reflect the greater thrust of the poem and it
> does...
>
> --
> Bob Marcacci
>
> Personally I'm always ready to learn, although
> I do not always like being taught.
> - Winston Churchill
>
>
>
> > From: kasper salonen <[log in to unmask]>
> > Reply-To: "Poetryetc: poetry and poetics" <[log in to unmask]>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2008 03:07:54 +0200
> > To: <[log in to unmask]>
> > Subject: Re: I know this doesn't scan, but...
> >
> > 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.
>
> > We write on water, we poets. Most of
> > us. Some write on sand, brief calligraphy
> > for seagulls, shore-birds and the slow inev-
> > itable tide. A few write to stain the sea,
> >
> > so intense, the color of their ink salts
> > the words of their inheritors years
> > beyond their own decline. It's not their fault
> > that rules and ideologies emerge
> >
> > poem by innocent poem. Some writers
> > strive to obscure the mysterious; some try
> > to reveal the obvious. Some are rhymers;
> > some are not. Some leap at the chance to fly.
> >
> > In hopes they will endure, some write their odes
> > on stone. Stone is hard. But even stone erodes.
>
|