[Roger Slater]

I really don't care if someone wants to call this a "sonnet," but my own opinion is that having a "sonnet-type structure" does not, by itself, make a poem a sonnet. Lots of poems that no one would call a sonnet have coherence, movement, and something resembling a turn. My own view is that if the only reason we wonder about the sonnet-ness of a poem is because the poet decided to call it a sonnet, it's not a sonnet. Sonnets are not sonnets by fiat.

But I do like the poem very much, whatever its label. Still, I feel the middle three couplets could be syntactically sounder. Their contribution to the poem is a bit muddy, since it seems that you could leave them out and the remaining four couplets would hold together without them.

[Cyn Neely]

I loved reading this one out loud. And I like the poem. Sonnet? I dunno, but I liked it and have read it many times and will read it again. I can't say that for a lot of poems I have read.

I'll leave the sonnet debate for you accomplished sonneteers.

[Simon Hunt]

I'd like to know more about why we like it. For now, I'm thinking it's over my head. Maybe I'll "get" it later--when I have time for rereading or when some kind person 'splains it to me.

It's not a sonnet for me, but so what? I don't care much about holding that line and invariably enjoy the debate over what counts as a sonnet and what doesn't.

[Cyn Neely]

I don't know Simon why we like it. I know *I* like the sound of it, and the puzzle of it - both of which inspire me to read it again.

[Elise Hempel]

I like the simplicity and compactness of this one. My complaint is the fourth couplet, which seems awkward, in both diction and forced-seeming rhyme. And not sure about the title....

[David Danoff]

A man, a plan, a sonnet... Or something.

I like this one, especially the sound of it, and I enjoy its cryptic qualities. Though Roger's right about the syntax not being quite right in the middle couplets. And he's also right that the first four lines and last four lines could stand alone, and maybe not lose much.

I feel a little let down by the way "happened" and "such" are unrhymed...or okay, maybe slant rhymed with the other lines. And on examination, I'm starting to find it unsatisfying the way lines 9-10 are stuck onto the preceding 8 lines, leaving lines 11-14 as an odd sort of concluding segment--neither sestet nor couplet. So it mimics a sonnet structure, but then it falls awkwardly in between the two best known versions.

Well, and on still further examination, "know" is an eye rhyme. Which didn't bother me--in fact I found it refreshing at that point. So maybe the earlier deviances don't matter.... Or maybe it's odd to be worrying about rhyme, when half the lines are actual repetitions.

Or maybe (I think this is my conclusion) there's an odd mix here of the very precise and somewhat loose engineering. And I think, in something this cryptic and sly-seeming, I'd like more precision.

[stephenspower]

So sonnet it is for this competition.

I liked its simplicity. I think more detail would mess up the effect. I did find a few lines clunky:

"as angry then,/as angry now" works better as "as angry then/as he his now" and would give the poem a little room to breathe.

"Happened," putting the "then" rhyme on the falling portion of the word, doesn't work for me.

"Thus, much Unjust/still leaves Nonplussed" would work better as "Much still Unjust/leave him Nonplussed," using the non-North American sense of "nonplussed" I suppose.

"to Live, Somehow" That comma isn't necessary.

As for the capitals, weird and old-fashioned, but I like them.