http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/10/quick-review-07/ A blog from the Poetry Foundation where contemporary poets debate classic and contemporary poetry from America and around the world. Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/10/quick-review-07/#comment-1318 Vivek Narayanan Sun, 28 Oct 2007 05:01:34 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=468#comment-1318 A very charming and -- hate to use this word again still -- lovely poem, worth gazing at repeatedly. But there something nagging at me here, an issue in the <i>internal</i> economy of the sonnet. Seems to me the key thing about a sonnet is that a) the first "half" is longer, in other words bigger, than the second "half" and b) in a successful sonnet, what the writer tries for, the content of the second "half" is concentrated via an excess of insight, feeling, sheer radiance, whatever, such that despite being physically smaller, the second "half" actually feels a little bigger than the first "half". This mysterious productive contradiction of imbalances was the key innovation of the sonnet that (if I remember correctly) elevated it above the 16-line form it was born out of in the 13th century and is probably part of the reason why the sonnet has remained such an enduring and mesmerising transhistorical / translinguistic form. And yet (this is subjective, of course) that resolution of imbalances doesn't quite come through for me in "Sonnet for Bonnie". Not only does the question mark feel as important as the answer but, more, it actually feels more important because of the superscript "8", which is larger than the second part's "6". Or is it just me? And yet I can't shake this feeling. What if, for instance, the font size of the second part of "Sonnet for Bonnie" were made slightly larger? Just a thought. A very charming and — hate to use this word again still — lovely poem, worth gazing at repeatedly. But there something nagging at me here, an issue in the internal economy of the sonnet.
Seems to me the key thing about a sonnet is that
a) the first “half” is longer, in other words bigger, than the second “half” and
b) in a successful sonnet, what the writer tries for, the content of the second “half” is concentrated via an excess of insight, feeling, sheer radiance, whatever, such that despite being physically smaller, the second “half” actually feels a little bigger than the first “half”.
This mysterious productive contradiction of imbalances was the key innovation of the sonnet that (if I remember correctly) elevated it above the 16-line form it was born out of in the 13th century and is probably part of the reason why the sonnet has remained such an enduring and mesmerising transhistorical / translinguistic form.
And yet (this is subjective, of course) that resolution of imbalances doesn’t quite come through for me in “Sonnet for Bonnie”. Not only does the question mark feel as important as the answer but, more, it actually feels more important because of the superscript “8″, which is larger than the second part’s “6″. Or is it just me? And yet I can’t shake this feeling.
What if, for instance, the font size of the second part of “Sonnet for Bonnie” were made slightly larger?
Just a thought.

]]> http://www.poetryfoundation.org/harriet/2007/10/quick-review-07/#comment-1317 Steve Sat, 27 Oct 2007 00:19:12 +0000 http://pf/harriet/?p=468#comment-1317 Well, it's not sappy. It does, though, raise the question of how much is "in the poem" and how much is in the ideas the poem generates in readers, and the related question of whether it even makes sense to say that anything is "in" the poem. (How much of the music on a CD is "in" the CD, and how much of it is "in" your player?) I'd say that the division above, though not perhaps analytically rigorous, makes a kind of phenomenological sense-- it speaks to my experience as a reader: I'd rather read Christian's explanation of Wershler-Henry's sonnet than read the sonnet six times, but I'd rather reread Yeats than read even the best Yeats criticism, given the either-or choice. For another neat limit case, check out <a href="http://www.randomville.com/article.html?article=39" rel="nofollow">Terrance Hayes' "Sonnet."</a> Well, it’s not sappy.
It does, though, raise the question of how much is “in the poem” and how much is in the ideas the poem generates in readers, and the related question of whether it even makes sense to say that anything is “in” the poem. (How much of the music on a CD is “in” the CD, and how much of it is “in” your player?)
I’d say that the division above, though not perhaps analytically rigorous, makes a kind of phenomenological sense– it speaks to my experience as a reader: I’d rather read Christian’s explanation of Wershler-Henry’s sonnet than read the sonnet six times, but I’d rather reread Yeats than read even the best Yeats criticism, given the either-or choice.
For another neat limit case, check out Terrance Hayes’ “Sonnet.”

]]>