Shane McCrae is one of my favorite Only Poems poets. In fact, you introduced me to him and I'm grateful for that. I love how he manipulates form in a way that's unique to him. In my mind, they still follow the rules--and tweaked rules that the poet makes for himself. The only thing I'm wondering is why does 'pseudo petrarchan sonnet' need to be in the title? I can tell by reading it that's what it is. I don't mean this as a criticism, just wondering.
I was actually wondering how this qualifies as pseudo. The rhyming scheme is Petrarchan (with some modification in the sestet). In fact, the rhymes are purer than most rhymes in contemporary sonnets. I don't see the pseudo-ness in it at all, except that it doesn't scan in a meter. So I guess a meter-purest might point that out. I, too, am tired of poets writing free verse poems, breaking them into fourteen lines, and dubbing them 'sonnets.'
Just saw this. Okay! It's a pseudo-Petrachan sonnet because the rhyme-scheme is not purely Petrarchan--lines 1 and 8 are extra-syllable rhymes, and so only rhyme with each other. The octave's pattern is: a, b, b, c, c, b, b, a. The poem is, however, in iambic pentameter--it does scan. There are a few trochaic inversions, and a few standard (but unmarked) elisions, but it does scan.
Thanks for responding! It gave me a reason to revisit your awesome poem :) I would’ve said the a and c words rhyme with each other in spite of the extra syllable, but I love how the extra syllable adds a sophistication to the rhyme scheme, and can now see why it’s pseudo. I’m constantly working on adding layers to my own formal poetry, and this is helpful :) I’m also working on scanning. I want to take some classes from Annie Finch, but don’t really have the money. I really really really admire your work—thanks again for responding.
I like (and share) the poet's outrage--and admire his presience--but I find it odd that its language is so stuttery, muted, oblique and fidgety. For me, the thing paws the ground too much. I think the writer ought to jusy have at it--in terms more direct and blistering (I spoze I'm just getting impatient). I know (sort of) some Petrarch (alas only in translation) and I'm not clear about what is "psuedo-Petrarchian" about this. Maybe I just need to read more Petrarch. GMD
Shane McCrae is one of my favorite Only Poems poets. In fact, you introduced me to him and I'm grateful for that. I love how he manipulates form in a way that's unique to him. In my mind, they still follow the rules--and tweaked rules that the poet makes for himself. The only thing I'm wondering is why does 'pseudo petrarchan sonnet' need to be in the title? I can tell by reading it that's what it is. I don't mean this as a criticism, just wondering.
So witty. And I'm glad to see Pseudo Sonnet. Tired of poets passing off non-sonnets as sonnets, even if it's me writing them. Or is it I?
I was actually wondering how this qualifies as pseudo. The rhyming scheme is Petrarchan (with some modification in the sestet). In fact, the rhymes are purer than most rhymes in contemporary sonnets. I don't see the pseudo-ness in it at all, except that it doesn't scan in a meter. So I guess a meter-purest might point that out. I, too, am tired of poets writing free verse poems, breaking them into fourteen lines, and dubbing them 'sonnets.'
Just saw this. Okay! It's a pseudo-Petrachan sonnet because the rhyme-scheme is not purely Petrarchan--lines 1 and 8 are extra-syllable rhymes, and so only rhyme with each other. The octave's pattern is: a, b, b, c, c, b, b, a. The poem is, however, in iambic pentameter--it does scan. There are a few trochaic inversions, and a few standard (but unmarked) elisions, but it does scan.
Thanks for responding! It gave me a reason to revisit your awesome poem :) I would’ve said the a and c words rhyme with each other in spite of the extra syllable, but I love how the extra syllable adds a sophistication to the rhyme scheme, and can now see why it’s pseudo. I’m constantly working on adding layers to my own formal poetry, and this is helpful :) I’m also working on scanning. I want to take some classes from Annie Finch, but don’t really have the money. I really really really admire your work—thanks again for responding.
I like (and share) the poet's outrage--and admire his presience--but I find it odd that its language is so stuttery, muted, oblique and fidgety. For me, the thing paws the ground too much. I think the writer ought to jusy have at it--in terms more direct and blistering (I spoze I'm just getting impatient). I know (sort of) some Petrarch (alas only in translation) and I'm not clear about what is "psuedo-Petrarchian" about this. Maybe I just need to read more Petrarch. GMD
Wild to think this was written before we were living P25. Poets, always ahead of the curve.
Yes, for better or worse
Yes, I was thinking that when I read it this am. . .