Obviously not every week, because the inevitable work rears its ugly head, and doesn't even give me the time or peace of mind to write this post or even think of words that don't involve blahblahblisation and poopoopoointificate, which don't really lend themselves to verse.
I seem to be trapped with chalk circles drawn around me, well, if they're not chalk then they are assignment submission dates. I break out of one by uttering the magic charm- which is extremely long and convoluted and filled with nonsense words and I only crash headlong into another (circle). Circles everywhere, around my eyes, a halo around my computer, a zero on everything else, and I have got caught up in my own rather weak rhetoric.
I apologise.
So the poetry thing. The week after the limerick was haiku week, which had interesting if not successful results. I've never really got into the haiku craze, and there have been very few haikus I've liked. Poetry can have a pretentious flavour to it, and haikus seemed to be the epitome of that. The fact that so many people were into it did put me off a bit, and their randomness didn't help.
I really thought it was just an excuse to throw random images at each other, watch them crash, and then revel in the spray of enigma and general "look how DEEP we are! Rhyming went out in the twentieth century!"...ness.
Writing them I did gain a little more respect for those who wrote them. It's trickier than I thought. Apparently you have to aim these images at each other, or they won't crash properly, only glance by and basically miss the point entirely. Or they'll just be three lines, with the requisite syllable or word count which sound vaguely interesting but are not Haikus!
The haiku writing was a bit of a failure, though my poetry partner, being more comfortable with the form, or perhaps more comfortable with the idea of the form did slightly better.
Evenings, the street lamps
halo passersby and wet roads
make raindrops glitter
I still think haikus are a form best left to the Japanese language, as the peculiarities suit each other perfectly. That is, it seems to me haikus were constructed in that language and English just doesn't have the tools. It's not just haikus that are written already and converted to English where the essence gets lost in translation, but just the act of writing them in an alien language. Of course, there's no fault with taking something beautiful and trying to recreate it differently, but I suggest giving it a different name, because they are not and can never be the same.
I ended up writing way more about haikus than I thought I would. I thought I'd take a quick break from studying the codification of law in the 19th century and copy paste a sonnet here. I should have known better.
Right, next week was Sonnet week, obviously my suggestion. This was a mistake perhaps, as the rigid form terrified my poetry partner stiff to the extent that she still hasn't written it, though the constant sream of work might have had something to do with that.
Quick 411 on sonnets- they're generally fourteen lines- each line with ten syllables- written in iambic pentameter, in which a pattern of an unstressed syllable followed by a stressed syllable is followed five times (still didn't get it it? Don't worry its clear enough when you read it) Have I forgotten anything? Ah yes, the rhyme scheme- abab cdcd efef gg. The couplet (gg) generally turns the theme around or looks at it differently.
Right enough said. I tried my hand at it. It was very difficult, and writing in this sort of rigid structure often takes away from the purity of the thought, in the sense that at least for me a lot of tweaking is required to batten it down to the iambic pentameter shape and what not.
One of the most famous sonnets is of course Shakespeare's.
Sonnet No. 116
Let me not to the marriage of true minds
Admit impediments. Love is not love
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove:
O no! it is an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering bark,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Love's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Love alters not with his brief hours and weeks,
But bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever loved.
I took issue with certain aspects of this sonnet and decided to well, reply in kind.
What alters when it alteration finds?
I never even sought to question that.
With foggy eyes I read that which reminds
Me sadly that I’m at a caveat.
I see no tempests but a minor squall
And yet I’m altered. Drops of rain throw hard
And stubborn truths at me. ‘No more! That’s all!’
I cry, and hurl the same words at the Bard.
Man has loved: here the Bard’s words mean no lie
Except that time does make of love a fool
Real emotion can fade or melt or die
Just as the sweetest words grow forced or cruel
Man has loved, Shakespeare has writ, but he’s wrong
If true, Love must change else it can’t last long.
Full circle on the sonnet front too, I suppose.
I'm proud of it, even if it sounds a little stiff, like an upper lip, a term that feels uncomfortable even existing in modernity. Or like my metaphors who really, so very badly want to be let go.
Anyway, it was true. True not in right or correct, but true in the feeling in which it was written, and that's what really matters I suppose.
Okay. Must dash.
