[Gene Auprey]

Janet,

Auden's poem is titled- The Platonic Blow

[Stephen Collington]

Yes, Janet, stuffed zucchini is always a treat. But it's much too much fuss for a simple post-coital brunch. You want something quick and light, something that lets the vegetable speak for itself, without all that heavy breading and eggy cholesterol.

As for the seeds, I grant you that plausibility here suggests a wee sweet thing hardly worth the trouble of halving. And the stem end does make such lovely little stars! But for the home gardener, overwhelmed by the zucchini's proverbial more-is-more attitude to life, the press of sheer volume must be considered. So here's to the Jolly Green Giant! Just make sure you don't choke on them seeds. Ho ho ho.

[Janet Kenny]

Originally posted by Gene Auprey:
Janet,

Auden's poem is titled- The Platonic Blow

Gene,
While it's more than I wanted to know (pun intended) it's jolly well written and the rhymes are impeccable. (pun intended).

Janet

[David Anthony]

I did enjoy this one.
Especially I loved the misdirection in the line breaks, and the joie de vivre.
Regarding the theme, I thought it a harmless bit of fun. In terms of propensity to shock it's not in the same league as this:

http://www.14by14.com/Issue2/TheBluestofLips.html

Best regards,
David

[Jim Hayes]

You're right David, it is a harmless bit of fun, and doesn't, in these libertarian times, shock, nor does Lips for that matter, which to me is by far the better poem.
The Copeland for all it's apparent cleverness is predicated on an intent to shock, and the ending, lets face it, is rather limp.

Well worth posting Rose, for all that.

[Janet Kenny]

I think that "Lips" is a better poem too. I wouldn't have made such a frank statement if it hadn't been the Bake-off and optimal poems the focus of the moment. In ordinary circumstances it would all have been a bit of fun.

[This message has been edited by Janet Kenny (edited May 05, 2008).]

[Roger Slater]

Makes people want to puke?

According to "Fist," the whole idea of a sonnet is to twist the readers entrails.

We have a winner here!

But seriously. I think this sonnet is redeemed by its humor and over the topness. Right off the bat, the first line enjambment is pretty funny, and that pretty much sets the tone. And the com-fortable enjambment, come on, that's so silly you have to smile a bit, no?

Silly is a good word for this entire sonnet, but silly is rarely done so well in formal terms. It's a unique mixture of goofiness and pornography, and the result, I think, ends up, paradoxically, being good clean fun.

I enjoyed, though when my cryogenically frozen body is defrosted in the third millennium, I do not expect to find this particular sonnet when I flip through the 537th edition of the Norton Anthology.

[Marybeth Rua-Larsen]

I think this is clever and fun, and I laughed out loud. It has spark. Does it have emotional depth? No -- nor is it meant to. So, this is a lively poem to read once or twice, to see a poet having fun with and twisting the sonnet form a bit. It has its place. I tend to like more out of my sonnets, which is why I would choose Julie Kane's "Finale" for a much more satisfying read. I look forward to that poem being posted for discussion.

Marybeth

[John Hutchcraft]

I think this sonnet has a certain depth that comes from its (sorry, but it's the right word) subversiveness. I was struck by how the sex play takes place not in a furtive club between two strangers (or a sex worker and a john) but in what sounds like a suburban neighborhood, and the players appear to be husband and wife. I second Rose's nit about "had knack," but my biggest complaint is the title: This sonnet seems to be suggesting, in its vivacity and domesticity, that there's nothing all that dirty going on. Which is a radical statement of a sort.

I think that this poem is much more anthologizable than "The Bluest of Lips," as this poem reflects the "sex positive" attitude that's quickly becoming more widespread in the US (and I assume abroad). I don't think necrophilia is catching on at quite the same rate. So, it could be construed - hell, I'm construing it as a kind of social document. I also think the end is touching in a way. When the play is done, she makes lunch for him! It's rather sweet and, to me, a perfect close. Pace some of the other commenters, I think this poem is very emotionally deep. In married life, what's deeper than sex, play, mutual caretaking? Here's a portrait that departs from the classic theme of "the wo that is in marriage" and instead shows the pleasure that's in marriage. Maybe it's just because I'm getting married this summer, but I think this is a deep topic, especially if one reflects on the ways that our expectations for marriage & coupledom have changed in the last forty years.

Anyway, thanks to Rose for posting this.

[This message has been edited by John Hutchcraft (edited May 05, 2008).]

[FOsen]

I don't see it as subersive - quite the opposite. Although there's nothing here that mandates the conclusion the two people are either married or even of the opposite sex everything seems to take place in a slightly humdrum domestic milieu - what really happens in this poem, other than a couple instances of awkward enjambment, followed by lunch?