Write a sonnet, win an ENnies nominee!

[jgbrowning]

Let me not to the marriage of true code
Admit impediments. Is code not code
Which alters when it alteration finds,
Or bends with the remover to remove?:
O no! it is not an ever-fixed mark
That looks on tempests and is never shaken;
It is the star to every wandering berk,
Whose worth's unknown, although his height be taken.
Code's not Time's fool, though rosy lips and cheeks
Within his bending sickle's compass come:
Code alters within his brief hours and weeks,
And bears it out even to the edge of doom.
If this be error and upon me proved,
I never writ, nor no man ever drove a damn big truck.


joe "the bard" b.

EDIT: this isn't a real entry. Just something I though MM would get a kick out of.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I always wondered what constituted a sonnet, who would have guessed that I'd find such a complete description here on ENworld?

You guys never cease to amaze me!

I don't think I'm up to attempting any kind of sonnet, so accepting that this is out of the running for the prize, I'll add my ditty.


Michael Morris
He is great
He can code
And he's our mate

 

[Wombat]

While this one does not fulfill all the rules, I shall retrun later, hopefully, with one that does.

Fair lands and fresh before our eyes
Do call for heroines of old
To take up arms, yet fairly prize
The piquant speech from lips most bold,
And perhaps therein a balance waits

That would not stain one's honour's due
But would, indeed, bring glory fair,
That matter lodged between vertu
And sprezzatura's gallant air;
Now open, herald, those silvered gates!

Who would disparage honour's name
Would then perforce bring naught but shame,
Yet through subtle air and gallant wit
And touch of magic do what is fit.

 

[Wombat]

Giving this a second try ... perhaps a bit more in line...

When first adventure called to doughty hearts
The cry was met with sword and lance and bow
With stallions strong and men of shining parts
Who knew dread impact's crushing blow

And there was man and there was dwarf and elf
The knight, the thief, the wizard's book of lore
And then the cleric, monk, and ranger's stealth
Our paladins like Charlemagne's of yore

And yet they paused in contemplation's grasp
For something they'd forgot or laid aside
A subtlety twixt blood and fanged asp
A notion said to lower manly pride

For standing forth replete with shining splendour
Was one of fame, but of another gender

 

[shilsen]

Just so folks know:

A sonnet is composed of fourteen lines of iambic pentameter -- that is five feet of (weak - STRONG) syllabic type (one weak syllable followed by one strong, so ten syllables per line). A sonnet is a description of a subject (rather than a tale or a philosophical ponderation. It is not strictly speaking a romantic form -- sonnets are often about romantic interests, but not exclusively.

More importantly, sonnets are built around a conceit called a "turn" -- a dramatic shift in the point of view or the attitude of the sonnet towards its subject. Where the turn exists is what informs the structure of the two sonnet types.

A Shakespearean sonnet (which I strongly recommend against, as nobody but Bill can write these) is four quatrains rhyming abab cdcd efef and a final couplet rhyming gg. The "turn" happens between the final quatrain and the couplet -- that's what makes Shakespearean sonnets so difficult. Tying to in two lines present an entirely new take on what you just spent twelve lines developing is just one demonstration of the towering genius that is Shakespeare.

A Petrarchan sonnet is much easier. Petrarchan sonnets are formed of two quatrains rhyming abba abba and a sextet that can rhyme in any of a number of ways: xyzxyz is fine, as is xyxy zz or even xx yy zz (not as impressive an achievement). The turn happens between the second quatrain and the sextet.

Most of the "sonnets" in this thread are no such thing -- they aren't in iambic pentameter (remember it's not just counting syllables, it's ordering stress among those syllables) and they lack the "turn" that really sets the sonnet apart as a form.

That's not to say they aren't fine poems in their own right, but by and large they are not, strictly speaking (and when it comes poetry, I ALWAYS speak strictly) sonnets.

Just to be nitpicky, while Barsoomcore gives a good functional definition of a sonnet, that's also a narrow definition (essentially applying to mid-16th to early-17th century English poetry) and hardly encapsulates sonnets as the form has existed and developed over the ages. You can have sonnets in iambic tetrameter or hexameter, with twelve lines or sixteen lines, and so on. The turn in the sonnet is even more specifically dated a concept, being very big for the Elizabethan writers taking on the sonnet from Italian (esp. Petrarch) and adapting it to their own purposes, but not always mattering in other periods. For the purposes of this competition, the fourteen line iambic pentameter version is probably a good baseline to go with, but it's definitely not the only form of sonnet possible and/or in existence.

 

[der_kluge]

My entry, in the Italian style (note also that all rhymed lines have the same number of syllables!):



Oh, the Ennies I crave.
He codes for us,
Michael Morris -
this crafty, wily knave

Of his time he doth gave.
We sing him this chorus,
code tyrannosaurus -
Michael Morris, the brave.

In Ionian Mode,
We sing for him this song -
Former truck-driver.

Joyous praises of code,
From Boston to Hong Kong -
This coding Macgyver.

 

[Wombat]

Since my first two missed the theme, let me see how this goes...

It's said of old, most secretive, a code
Evolved by which html would thrive
And wizards bold in dark illumed abode
Took up the task that sites might truly thrive

Yet no thieves these, nor yet foul loathsome spies
But canny folk of high and worthy praise
Who through nice argument could oft apprise
Twixt 0 and 1 the news of many days

Thus doff your hats and sing a bright huzzah
For those whose furtive skills would glad our day
And know without their toil a morning blah
Would cover us instead of light our way

Kind Morris, then, the master of his trade,
We exaltate with many accolade!

(I have fun doing this kind of stuff -- explains why my players get a lot of poem-clues in the game! )

 

[barsoomcore]

You can have sonnets in iambic tetrameter or hexameter, with twelve lines or sixteen lines, and so on. The turn in the sonnet is even more specifically dated a concept, being very big for the Elizabethan writers taking on the sonnet from Italian (esp. Petrarch) and adapting it to their own purposes, but not always mattering in other periods.

Okay, so number of lines doesn't matter, meter doesn't matter and the dialectical structure doesn't matter. What DOES define a sonnet, then, in your world?

Non-standard forms are always possible (and permissible), of course. Shelley's "Ozymandias" is non-standard in rhyme structure but it's still basically a sonnet because of its turn (thus giving it the two-part structure that forms a sonnet's essential nature) (and we all note that Shelley's NOT an Elizabethan writer, don't we?), its iambic pentameter, and its length. I don't know how you can say that those things don't contribute to defining a sonnet. Can they be altered by a sufficiently determined (or reckless) poet? Sure (well the latter two anyway -- but I don't agree that a sonnet without a turn is in fact a sonnet). But like my book How To Draw Monsters said in reference to learning anatomy, "You gotta know where the head is SUPPOSED to go before you chop it off and tuck it under the arm."

And there exist sonnet types I didn't even touch on -- the Spenserian sonnet for one -- but you gotta draw the line somewhere, and virtually everything interesting that's been done in English sonnets has been done in Petrarchan or Shakespearean sonnets.

Once you throw out meter, stanza and intellectual form, what's left? Well, most of modern "poetry" of course, but those quotation marks ought to tell you what I think of that.

 

[Wombat]

Still, it must be admitted that the sonnet is not a 100% cut-and-dried formula as well. As has been pointed out there are multiple rhyme schemes. I have seen some 16th century sonnets with only four feet per line. Equally, as has already been admitted here, not all of them have to have a "twist" by any means. And there are even 16 and 18 line sonnets that have appeared.

Yes, there is a fairly formal nature to the sonnet, but when the word "sonnet" is used in this kind of setting, you have to allow for a fair amount of variation, especially when it is not qualified beyond the basic term.

Hey, at least no one has delivered heroic couplets.

Poetry is many things to many people. The sonnet is a fairly rigid form and should be treated as such, yet unless we are saying Petrarchian Sonnet, Shakespearean Sonnet, or one of the other variations, we must needs allow for a certain range.

 

[alsih2o]

Okay, so number of lines doesn't matter, meter doesn't matter and the dialectical structure doesn't matter. What DOES define a sonnet, then, in your world?

Non-standard forms are always possible (and permissible), of course. Shelley's "Ozymandias" is non-standard in rhyme structure but it's still basically a sonnet because of its turn (thus giving it the two-part structure that forms a sonnet's essential nature) (and we all note that Shelley's NOT an Elizabethan writer, don't we?), its iambic pentameter, and its length. I don't know how you can say that those things don't contribute to defining a sonnet. Can they be altered by a sufficiently determined (or reckless) poet? Sure (well the latter two anyway -- but I don't agree that a sonnet without a turn is in fact a sonnet). But like my book How To Draw Monsters said in reference to learning anatomy, "You gotta know where the head is SUPPOSED to go before you chop it off and tuck it under the arm."

And there exist sonnet types I didn't even touch on -- the Spenserian sonnet for one -- but you gotta draw the line somewhere, and virtually everything interesting that's been done in English sonnets has been done in Petrarchan or Shakespearean sonnets.

Once you throw out meter, stanza and intellectual form, what's left? Well, most of modern "poetry" of course, but those quotation marks ought to tell you what I think of that.

Could you please take your critique someplace where it doesn't discourage people from participating? Please?