[Mark McDonnell]

You are just making things up, whole cloth, then interpreting my posts on that basis

Ooh. OK, so Kevin said

I would say any poem that lives up to any of the traditions of Sonnets established by the great poets of the past, "Petrarchan" "Shakespearean" "Spenserian", etc.. is a sonnet. In other words, it needs to have a meter, line-length, and rhyme-scheme and volta according to the tradition it follows. You can't write a "Shakespearean Sonnet" if you don't follow the form that makes it "Shakespearean".

The best options for the sonnet are already, for the most part, established. Do you really think you can come up with something better than the traditions established by the best poets of the past?

and you replied (presumably to this point, since you mention him by name)

My impulse is to be snarky, but I'll squelch it. Instead, I'll ask a serious question: what possible function does conservatism about form like Kevin's serve? (What follows doesn't address this immediately, but I'll get back around to it.)

As I see it, if you truly believe that the possibilities of the sonnet form were exhausted by the existing masters, and that you cannot do better, then you simply have no reason to write sonnets. If the form is dead, let it be, stop exhuming it for pointless exercises that waste everyone's time.

Only poets who believe the form is not exhausted—whether they are writing within the strict confines of the tradition or stretching it—have any business writing sonnets.

So my thought process was what "impulse to be snarky" has to be squelched here in what is simply a disagreement about poetry? If I was wrong to see an implication about the linking of Kevin's poetic conservatism with his political conservatism, I apologise. But, then I still don't understand your "snarky" comment.

Also in my thought process was that you take Kevin's fairly neutral word "established" (The best options for the sonnet are already, for the most part, established. Do you really think you can come up with something better than the traditions established by the best poets of the past? ) and rephrase his point with the word "exhausted" (As I see it, if you truly believe that the possibilities of the sonnet form were exhausted by the existing masters, and that you cannot do better, then you simply have no reason to write sonnets) which has very different connotations. You seem to be saying fairly clearly that holding the belief that the rules of the sonnet have been well established and don't much need to change is the same as admitting the sonnet is "dead" and "exhausted" and therefore the people who hold these views have no business writing sonnets. Which I disagreed with by making the point that the content is more important than the form, among other points. .

Later you say

So, to return to the question: what function can Kevin's conservatism serve? (It's not just Kevin's, of course; we can be grateful to him for voicing a view held by many.)

This mistakenly labels as 'conservative' (which suggests a point of principle) the opinion that variations in the traditional sonnet forms haven't resulted in any significant poetic improvements (which is just an opinion based on one's aesthetic taste). It also, in the parenthesis, hints at the sort of sarcasm usually reserved for someone who has inadvertently revealed themselves to be a racist. Again, forgive me if I'm wrong.

Also, you made the link between poetic/political conservatism explicit when you said

It's also true of politics; those who lament the decline of "western civilization" and want to "conserve" it have no love for the open-ended mish-mash of traditions that have lived and thrived in the west—they want a narrow, closed-off, arbitrary, dead thing.

And when I said you sounded evangelical, I suppose I was responding to this sort of thing :

As so often, then, the conservatism that pledges fealty to a given tradition works primarily to ensure that it become a moribund thing—the conservative pledges fealty to a carcass.

which seemed a bit...much, perhaps, in its evocation of a style of heightened political rhetoric, for a discussion about poetic form. Especially when most people are agreeing with you and the most 'conservative' voice here (Kevin) had concluded his latest argument with the entirely inoffensive

A good sonnet that only slightly varies the tradition of a sonnet is something I don't think anyone has any issues with. It is when a "sonnet" has more nonsonnet than sonnet in it, and only vaguely resembles a sonnet, instead of certainly fulfilling it, that it probably shouldn't be called a sonnet.

So, while I largely agree with your (rather than Kevin's) thoughts about the sonnet, I disagree that I'm "making things up whole cloth" with regard to the way you present your argument. Perhaps the problem is that I just don't feel the same passion as you do about the changing trends of the poetry world, or any obligation to keep any particular tradition alive. Those worries and responsibilities seem entirely beyond my reach. It's enough for me to worry about where my next poem is coming from and whether it will be any good.

(I'm aware of the irony of the length of this post, for someone who claims not to care about the issue)

Goddammit Aaron, we can argue about anything can't we, even when we basically agree? C’mon, say what you really think: "All Traditional Sonneteers Are Bastards"! Haha