Sinnaminsun - I'm commenting on my own poem cause I'm bored.
The third stanza needs work and will be revised if/when I think of something.
Derma Kaput - I agree about the third stanza. but I think the first two lines need work as well, if only to get this sonnet rolling with a little more momentum. meaning, I have to pause and really think about the grammatical construct there, when I should really be propelled into the meat of the poem. maybe it would be as simple as a comma after "slain". otherwise, the meter is pretty consistent, even though I have to stop and make sure I emphasize the second syllable of "under" (line 12) instead of the first as would be more natural to my way of speaking. which might just be my way of speaking. but what really needs work throughout is to find ways to make some of the grammar less, um, convoluted. I think your sentence structures are mostly legit, but sometimes just sprinkling a straight forward sentence here and there throughout a poem like this helps the reader to keep it flowing when they read. in other words, don't let other aspects of the writing take a back seat to the demands of the form. In many places, this poem feels like you've found solutions to satisfying the form, but the solutions make it unnecessarily difficult to read.
So, not a bad sonnet at all - if all that matters is meeting the criteria of a sonnet. But what makes a sonnet a terrific form for a poem is the way it serves as a structural tool for making a poem rise above ordinary language. In other words, as far as I'm concerned, the form is only a tool, not an end in itself. An opinion with which others here would likely disagree. But still, I think this poem needs greater attention to the grammar, while still meeting the strict criteria of a sonnet. Again, as a sonnet, not bad. As a poem though, it needs work.
Laura doom - Hi Sim -- a quick comment as a cue to keep you yawning 
I tend to agree with Derma's comments, especially in relation to the form. Iambic Pentameter has been adopted as the standard for 'English' sonnets (and for 'English' poetry in general) because it's regaded as reflecting the natural rhythm of spoken English, although it's true that no regular metrical structure can account for all patterns and variations of speech in any language. I think the pertinent phrase there is 'natural rhythm'. Perhaps that's most relevant here in S3, which I agree needs some revision. It's presented as 4 straight, stopped sentences; that might be regarded as 'unpoetic' in style, too regular to represent a natural structure in terms of speech, development of ideas and imagery. I'd also reconsider the use of inversion in the first line. Unless you're deliberately attempting to emulate the style of 'classical' poets for a particular purpose, I'd avoid disrupting the normal language structure where possible. As Derma says, it forces some readers to stop and consider the meaning of a line when subject and object clauses of verbs are placed in an unfamiliar order. Of course, that's just my take on it.
The opening of line 4 (Under) is easily rectified by using 'beneath', where the 'natural' stress is on the second syllable.
Good to see a sonnet being posted Sim -- I've always suspected you of being an inveterate masochist
Sinnaminsun - Laura and Derma, thank you for the input:) When I wrote this I had iambic pentameter running through my thought processes, and it did affect the grammar and muttled what I was trying to convey. I wasn't sure at the time if I could part from the iambic rhythm in places.
Sinnaminsun - I revised this some more today, today being the day after yesterday's revision and it needs more work......on another day.
Invite participants
Share at Facebook
Share at Twitter
Share at LinkedIn
Reference this page