[Christy Reno]

I agree with most of the comments that have been said. It gets off to a rough start in L1 with shaky meter and a boring language. It seems more prose than poetry, as Michael stated. I don't have major issues with L2-L7 but think there are some minor details that could be given tuning. I don't agree with every criticism, but overall, it isn't quite working. I have major issues with L8. It's news to me too, Catherine. I almost wonder if it's meant to jar and deflect the reader's attention away from what appears to be a rushed sestet. I'd be more interested in why Bess decided to give up rather than have it stated so simply as "Then one year/
she sees that it’s no use, the magician’s wife/
accepts he’s gone[:]. . . .The final sentence with "réalité" being distracting (less so if it were italicized) and lack of attention to a better close than an oddly phrased cliche leave me disappointed. Also the sestet rhyme scheme EFE GHG threw me off. I wonder if there could have been one more fitting.

[Bruce McBirney]

This seems a fairly strong poem that could be made stronger.

I suspect the wrong-sounding “at his bequest” (rather than “behest”) was not an unintended mistake, but a conscious swapping of the two words, since Houdini’s plan for the séances was an end-of-life type of directive. Even so, since it reads like a mistake, it’s an unhelpful distraction early in the poem.

More substantively, like some others, I found lines 7-8 to be vaguely irreverent, and thus vaguely/lukewarmly offensive, which probably comes off to readers, whether religious or nonreligious, in a way that isn't intended.

All in all, though, this has an interesting situation and thought-provoking last line, laid out with craft by a writer who’s clearly an experienced and accomplished sonneteer. (And his/her very strongest work is probably already in print or under submission elsewhere, rather than being submitted for bake-off pummeling!) I’m going to guess the author has had entries featured in this event in past years, and has even posted in this thread as a bit of misdirection.

[Wells Burgess]

I can go with the ironic, tongue-in-cheek voice/tone of this sonnet, and in that light have no problem with the hyperbolic comparison with the resurrection in the second stanza. Troubled that the writer would change the name of H's wife (Woody's comment) to make a rhyme. For some reason, and I think it's the sentence beginning "Then one year..., this light ironic tone is not sustained in the poem. The sentence feels both banal and padded in language ("the magician's wife/accepts he's gone') and it forecloses for me the full enjoyment of the final couplet. Wells Burgess

[Christine Whittemore]

Sorry, chiming in late as I'm away from home and routine...and of course, when one chimes in late, most of the points one would make have been made by everyone else!

I too am disconcerted by the "climbing down from the Cross" bit, annoyed by "réalité," and found various other jarring things....

I do like the idea itself, the waiting for Houdini to speak from beyond the grave--an unusual idea for a sonnet. I feel lots more could be done with it, though...and the last line falls flat, for me.

[Eileen Cleary]

There will be ten sonnets in total?

[Rick Mullin]

Not much to add. I'm with those who find this one clumsy. It's an example of an idea that runs around the sonnet bases, ...and for what? Christ did not climb down from the cross, by the way, at least not according to the nuns at St. Rose of Lima. The one shot of life is the first few words of the sestet, which is a nice gear change. But again, ... for what?

[Robert Meyer]

I really think this sonnet has gotten a bum rap, and I apologize to the author that I took so long to say something. On the Beth vs. Bess thing, apparently Harry called her Beth. On the issue of using the French "réalité" I don't see a problem; they're show biz people and therefore are often using 'exotic' words. If it is a problem in the poem, to be consistent in the critique one should say "Madame Houdini" should rather be "Mrs. Houdini" also because Madame's just a fancy French way of saying it (of course that would mean replacing an iamb with a trochee). On the bequest / behest / request issue, I think that request is the weakest choice by far; I think behest would be slightly better than bequest but both are ok with me. On L8, I've never seen such theological outrage on this site; although when Cathy says "EEK!" it's always cute. I doubt that any reader didn't get it that it was the resurrection; the thing is this is about poetry, the phrase "was resurrected" doesn't have the power of four alliterations plus the active verb "climbed" (rather than the more theologically accurate "was resurrected"). On "agreed" rather than "agreed on" I could go either way:

...Beth doesn’t hear
the code word they’d agreed on; puts away
the cards and glass till next year. ...

may be a little better, but both work for me. I don't see a problem with "magician" - if you stopped 10 people on the street with the question of "What was Houdini?" probably all would say "He was a magician." Who would say, "Magician? Nonsense! He was an illusionist!"

Robert Meyer

[L.M. Price]

For the most part, I agree with Robert. The use of Beth doesn't bother me at all, though I do think behest would be better than bequest.
I don't like the repetition of 'year' so close together in the sestet. But my main complaint would be with 'climbed down', since whether you believe in his resurrection, or think it was a trick, he died and the body was taken down. Even if the poet intended to allude to the resurrection, it doesn't work for me. But I wonder if a simple change of verb would help. 'came down from Calvary's cross', perhaps?