Ann, ditto what Frank said. A beauty.

Ann, that's lovely.

Pedro.

Thanks to everyone for such positive feedback on what I feared was a totally subjective reaction to the challenge. I've done a couple of tweaks since I posted it in the heat of the moment and can justify the changes in the light of later wisdom. I felt it had been over-dominated by all the self-imposed constraints. I had, in fact, considered constructing a Fibonacci Sonnet, but decided that Heroic Couplets were more in tune with the spirit of it.

This is a theoretical device
For sorting sheep from goats. Ticks will suffice.
What is your first impression of a cactus?
Prickly or Fibonacci phyllotaxis?
What would you use on an Entscheidungsproblem?
A dictionary or an algorithm?
What do you think a Banburismus is?
A belch? A tool for cryptanalysis?
Do you align yourself with Normal types
Or chain your tea-mug to the water pipes?
Did you do you-know-what with you-know-who?
If yes, continue to subsection two -
Accept the oestrogen or rot in jail?
You may tick one box only. Pass or Fail.
CAPTCHA or Gotcher. Then Delilah’s voice
Proposes a subsidiary choice:
The poisoned apple or the wicked queen?
Which is the man and which is the machine?

How would a Fibonacci sonnet work, Ann?

I think it's a Canadian wheeze. Actually a prose device, which works thus:

On the page, it looks like two paragraphs. Each sentence is made of the number of words in the Fibonnaci series. One of the paragraphs is longer than the other by one sentence. The Fibonnaci count in either parangaph can go in either direction. So it could have a first paragraph of nine sentences and a second paragraph of eight sentences, with the word count for each sentence in order being 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34; 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21. Or the first paragraph could be ten sentences long and the second paragraph eleven, with the word-counts for each sentence being 55, 34, 21, 13, 8, 5, 3, 2, 1, 1; then 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89. (Courtesy of Bruce Holland Rogers and Ron McFarland)

All it is really is a way of making prose writers think about what they're doing in the way that we formal poets do by instinct. And you can adapt it so it looks like a poem, but I think that's cheating.

Who knew? Unbelievable. This must be the prosodic equivalent of the widely celebrated Rule 34. In this case, "If it exists, there's a sonnet form for it!" ;)

Here. And here. (skip to the second one). And this one has a rhyme scheme.

It really *is* twenty twelve, and clearly the apocalypse draws nigh! ;)

Thanks,

Bill

Well done, Bill. Pity none of them are any good. You have to write one yourself. Go to it!

John,

Not me! I will leave that work to wiser souls and better poets than I! ;)

On the other hand, while doing research, I *did* find this little gem:

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Turing_Duck_Test

The flowchart is especially illuminating! ;)

Best,

Bill

Brilliant, Bill. Everybody should consult this. Are there any other entries in the uncyclopedia? The very stuff of poetry.

John,

It's pretty accurate, and fairly comprehensive. You will especially enjoy this entry: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Poetry

Which begins with this famous quote from Don Juan himself: “Poetry is like the glittering pink ocean. It sounds beautiful and delectable, but you really have no idea what is going on. I mean, glittering pink ocean? WTF?" ~ Lord Byron on poetry


And the article contains this definition: "Poetry is the art of writing incoherent phrases to suggest mystery and generally confuse people. It does this through diction, caesura, figurative language, and large amounts of illegal drugs ... Poetry is often written with the intention of attracting girls. ... Anything written about poetry is purely speculative since nobody ever reads it."

Thanks,

Bill