I second Lewis this is NOT a sonnet.
The cardinal rules for sonnets long successfully toyed with too flagrantly, yet do NOT allow a trimeter beauty to waltz on the stage and win the crown under such a name. At that rate you might be more able to pull god out of a top hat. And to think the legitimate model's octet/sestet were utilized as if that would allow the christening to proceed flawlessly. Permutations took a wild leap when they sanctified this baby. Nor can it outlast its day.
When anthologists pick and choose today, are they less stringent in their generosity than 120 years or so ago? Herrick's 14 line beauty was disallowed and too many other gems likewise disregarded, but perhaps Main was above most.
Yet I see Judge Chandler, if I may be forgiven for rather playfully rendering Cathy thus, has justified the judges' claim for this by the supposedly ever evolving form. I beg to differ. But then again, I stand corrected. Some clever fellow showed me his one-liner sonnet on AP and I guess looking at your dog might not only be wonderful poetry but also a hearty sonnet. Impressive. I firmly disagree, but thank you very much for explaining why this was considered more than acceptable.
Other than the curious claim that this is a sonnet, it is both amusing, clever and thought-provoking, not to mention excellently theological since the LORD God said all flesh is grass in both Isaiah 40:6 and again also by His apostle Peter in I Pet 1:24. Lovely bit of end-rhyming as well.
If not for the utterly untenable (in my opinion) assessment of this being a sonnet, it is a delightful poem and a treasure in its own right. Excepting that I quite enjoyed it.
Thanks for sharing!
ttfn,
Jenny
|