I think it's a beautiful poem. and I think it could be made a great
sonnet with relatively few changes. this certainly doesn't scan, &
that's the only thing that makes me not want to call this a sonnet.
how well do you know metre? the first line of the final couplet is in
perfect iambic pentameter, and that's what the rest of the poem should
be in, for it to quality as a sonnet (to me).
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.
KS
On 22/01/2008, sharon brogan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> ... I'm not sure what's allowed. I tried to respond to two prompts
> with one poem: write a sonnet, and write about the frailty of human
> effort:
>
> Ephemeral Sonnet
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Not as fun as Halvard's -- but is it a sonnet? If not, what must I do
> to make it one?
>
> --
>
>
> ~ SB | http://www.sbpoet.com | =^..^=
>
|