[Mark McDonnell]

Jayne, apologies. Aaron and I had just finished one of our pointless arguments that we like to have to pass the long evenings and my blood was still up. In my defence, I swear I'd have leaped on anyone.

Aaron,

Mark, what I wanted to reply snarkily to was the "do you really think you're better than the tradition" bit. Well, yes I do! Now I'm probably wrong about that, but someone won't be, and they'll be the one to carry the tradition forward.

That reminded me of the exchange between Virginia Woolf and TS Eliot. Woolf said to Eliot, 'We're not as good as Keats.' and Eliot replied: 'Oh yes, we are. We're trying something harder'.

As Ollie says to Stan, "Twas ever thus".

[Ann Drysdale]

Just a thought...

Every established form had a beginning, a lightbulb moment in somebody’s head – somebody who’ll have been accused of sinning when lovers of the former "form" saw red and claimed that they had broken something special by making variations on their song, so that refinements they had seen as crucial suddenly disappeared or turned up wrong.

Poor Thomas Wyatt got a lot of knocking - accused of being actively obscene (though his newfangled sonnets weren’t so shocking as his prenuptial dalliance with the queen.)
Time kissed it better, Tom, and now your sonnet is well accepted as a sonnet. Innit.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrM2fxnkxjA
.

[Catherine Chandler]

Aaron:


"Broken Sonnet: Divorce" is definitely a sonnet.
It is non-traditional in its heterometric lines and rhymes; traditional in that it has a volta at line 9 and has 14 lines.

Aside from the question you pose, as to whether or not it is a sonnet, the title is underwhelming in two ways: (1) it seems to dare the reader to dispute its sonnet-ness by its in-your-face first part of the title, and then (2) "tells" what the reader will (most likely) figure out for herself as she comes to the final, beautiful line.

Is it yours? If so, Bravo! (But please change the title).


Cathy

[Jayne Osborn]

Originally Posted by Brian Allgar

Broken Limerick

Jayne,
I (another Brit)
Entirely agree
With
You.

Haha. Thanks for bringing more levity to the discussion, Brian. You're not the only one who agrees with me, though clearly Cathy doesn't!

Cathy,
I carefully added "in my opinion'' when I said this is not a sonnet; it's a bit dogmatic to say this is definitely a sonnet, when many people regard it as only having similarities to a sonnet, making it a 14-line poem, therefore, rather than any particular form.

(And it's by Michael Spence, btw, not Aaron.)

Jayne
(Popped back to say that I actually like the poem, but just cannot agree it's a sonnet, that's all. I think "Divorce" on its own would be a good, subtle, title for it.)

[Matt Q]

Hi Catherine and Jayne,

The question of whether or not "Broken Sonnet: Divorce" is a sonnet is something I can understand people disagreeing on: it clearly does deviate quite a bit from a standard sonnet template, while also having some similarities.

People have different ideas on what makes something a sonnet, and draw their lines in different places, and that's absolutely fair enough. To simplify matters, let's say that Aaron is simply objectively wrong to claim that Spence's poem is a sonnet: let's agree that, as a sonnet, it fails.

But why does that make you want to change the title of the poem? That's what confuses me.

We know, as poets, that words and phrases in poems don't have to be literal truth claims. We don't object that 'hope', being a psychological state, can't have feathers, or that Plath, when pregnant, isn't really a melon because she doesn't have enough of the defining properties of a melon. Objecting to the title on the grounds of inaccuracy seems to me to be doing something like this.

I'd say that the title is saying, "this poem is like a sonnet that has been broken" and the implication is, "just like this marriage has broken".

So if we look at the poem and compare it to a sonnet, we see that the number of feet per line changes and the rhymes are slant, and not even assonant slant rhymes, and we say, "yes, evaluated as a sonnet, I can see why you would call this broken, defective, not functioning properly" (an evaluation I think you both agree with), and we see how this is analogous to a marriage that leads to divorce.

So I'd say the title doesn't claim that the poem itself is a valid sonnet. It asks the reader to look at it as if it were a sonnet. It makes a figurative, poetic move. We're normally prepared to look at titles as making figurative, non-literal, moves, so why not here?

In fact, if the poem were actually claiming to be a valid sonnet, it would be undermining itself. If we read the poem and say, "no, that's a perfectly valid sonnet, nothing broken here", the title stops working, and the match between form and content is lost.

I think it's a great title.

-Matt

[Aaron Novick]

Originally Posted by Catherine Chandler

Aaron:


"Broken Sonnet: Divorce" is definitely a sonnet.
It is non-traditional in its heterometric lines and rhymes; traditional in that it has a volta at line 9 and has 14 lines.

Aside from the question you pose, as to whether or not it is a sonnet, the title is underwhelming in two ways: (1) it seems to dare the reader to dispute its sonnet-ness by its in-your-face first part of the title, and then (2) "tells" what the reader will (most likely) figure out for herself as she comes to the final, beautiful line.

Is it yours? If so, Bravo! (But please change the title).


Cathy

It's a poem by Michael Spence—the title is not mine to change!

I didn't actually intend this thread to be specifically about Spence's poem, though it has gathered a lot of attention because it's the only one I quoted. But I meant Rick's 15-line sonnets and Bronk's blank verse sonnets (for instance) to be as much test cases for the bounds of the sonnet, and all were meant simply as discussion starters.

[Jayne Osborn]

Matt,
You make a good point, and you make it very well, but I'm not suggesting the title should have ''sonnet'' removed simply because I object to it being called a sonnet.
I don't think I would necessarily have even realised the poem was about divorce - it might have been the death of the N's wife, for instance - but the title points the way, and is apt enough on its own. Less is more

It's an interesting thread, Aaron, so thanks for instigating it.

Jayne

[Catherine Chandler]

Hi all!

As a former host of the Eratosphere Sonnet Bake-offs of 2009 (with DG Turner Cassity) and 2011 (with DG R.S. Gwynn), as well as co-host and co-DG of the Sonnet Bake-off "tag-team" with Gail White in 2013, I stand by my "somewhat dogmatic" and, in Jayne's opinion, careless statement about the Spence sonnet.

To each his own.

Note: Due to the pandemic and knee surgery (postponed) I was unable to conduct the sonnet workshop at the 2020 Frost Farm Poetry Conference. Hopefully, the stars will align at some future time, and I hope some of you can make it.

Stay safe.

Cathy

[Matt Q]

Jayne and Catherine

Apologies to both of you for making assumptions and for not reading your posts carefully enough. I'd assumed that your points about the title were as a result of you not thinking the poem was a sonnet.

I'm feeling a little embarrassed about my lecture. I shall try to read more carefully in future.

Matt

[Jayne Osborn]

No worries, Matt, and certainly no need to feel embarrassed. I know how you feel, though...

... 'cos I feel awful that Cathy thinks I thought she made a "careless statement about the Spence sonnet". I didn't say that.

I totally respect your credentials with judging Sonnet Bake-Offs, Cathy - (good job they didn't ask me to do it, eh?? )

Jayne