Karla / Sonnet
Karla
You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
To parse a warning when another gist
Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
The hazy border that would know its end,
Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
So loosed the firefly afar from home:
It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
Karla
Will Dockery
This is really good, sparkles of Ferlinghetti & Joan Rawshanks in the
fog, Corso running Ginsberg down a big hill-street over on the North
end... the myth of Frisco, which I know the natives hate to hear it
referred to, but is there, anyhow.
And the Sonnet, really liking the Sonnet form, these days, making my
way through WS's work, currently on #101, a mighty fine one & very
close hitting to home for me. Have a look:
Sonnet #101
Posted:
CI.
O truant Muse, what shall be thy amends
For thy neglect of truth in beauty dyed?
Both truth and beauty on my love depends;
So dost thou too, and therein dignified.
Make answer, Muse: wilt thou not haply say
'Truth needs no colour, with his colour fix'd;
Beauty no pencil, beauty's truth to lay;
But best is best, if never intermix'd?'
Because he needs no praise, wilt thou be dumb?
Excuse not silence so; for't lies in thee
To make him much outlive a gilded tomb,
And to be praised of ages yet to be.
Then do thy office, Muse; I teach thee how
To make him seem long hence as he shows now.
-WS
--
"Truck Stop Woman" by Will Dockery (the video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvtQEf7bnfs
Karla
>
>
>"Karla" <kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:734kg597v7l3u439m...@4ax.com...
>
>want my opinion?
>
>mdc
Yes. All opinions/comments welcome.
Thanks,
Karla
Karla
Will Dockery says...
>
>On Nov 22, 11:33=A0pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>> Sonnet
>>
>> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
>> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
>> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
>> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
>> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
>> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
>> To parse a warning when another gist
>> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
>> We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
>> The hazy border that would know its end,
>> Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
>> Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
>> So loosed the firefly afar from home:
>> It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
>>
>> Karla
>
>This is really good, sparkles of Ferlinghetti & Joan Rawshanks in the
>fog, Corso running Ginsberg down a big hill-street over on the North
>end... the myth of Frisco, which I know the natives hate to hear it
>referred to, but is there, anyhow.
Thank you.
Karla
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
Should I stay or should I go now.....
The ayes have it.
Will Dockery
Mick Jones... what an overlooked poet he is/was.
--
"Waking Up Now" by Will Dockery (the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8_Yp-dIPCY
Will Dockery
>"Karla" <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:734kg597v7l3u439m...@4ax.com...
>
>> Sonnet
>
> >> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
> >> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
> >> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
> >> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
> >> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
> >> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
> >> To parse a warning when another gist
> >> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
> >> We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
> >> The hazy border that would know its end,
> >> Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
> >> Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
> >> So loosed the firefly afar from home:
> >> It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
>
> >> Karla
>
> >hmm,
>
> >want my opinion?
>
> >mdc
You might want to ask Karla's permission before you decide to make a
recording of it & post it on your website, though, Michael... when Tom
Bishop emulated your working methods on KR's poem a while back, it
didn't work out so well for him.
--
"Waking Up Now" by Will Dockery (the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8_Yp-dIPCY
> --
> "Red Lipped Stranger" & other stories:
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
>
> - Show quoted text -
Skip Ewing also comes to mind:
Will Dockery
> On Nov 23, 2:19 pm, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Nov 23, 1:41 pm, BLACKPOOLJIMMY <Chippandf...@aol.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 22, 11:33 pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > > Sonnet
>
> > > > You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
> > > > Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
> > > > They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
> > > > Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
> > > > Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
> > > > Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
> > > > To parse a warning when another gist
> > > > Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
> > > > We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
> > > > The hazy border that would know its end,
> > > > Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
> > > > Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
> > > > So loosed the firefly afar from home:
> > > > It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
>
> > > > Karla
>
> > > Should I stay or should I go now.....
>
> > > The ayes have it.
>
> > Mick Jones... what an overlooked poet he is/was.
>
> > --
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Skip Ewing also comes to mind:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPS1B6vqLEk
I remember Skip best from his days with Mojo Nixon... if my mem'ry
serves me well. Thanks for the link, I'll go now and have a look/
listen...
--
Truck Stop Woman video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvtQEf7bnfs
spazzmattick
news:734kg597v7l3u439m...@4ax.com...
all due respect to the lovely and talented karla rogers.
and, here's a bonus by the equally and lovely talented JS Carter...
for those who like this usenet legend stuff.
(and, karla's been around for quite awhile...blessing
this space with working mans poetry the whole time...who cares
and who doesn't care..?you choose...)
The Love Bug
Well, if you hear me sniffle then you'll know
your love has struck me down, just like a bug,
on Nova or some other science show,
that turns its victims blue, or swells or plugs
whatever orifice you need the most.
I would forgive a scientist gone mad
like Wilder's Frankenstein, but not the host
of adolescents making programs plaid
with cruel cross-purposes, then poking fun
at we who hope that we are truly loved
and leap to read the affirmation, stunned
by your deceit. But I've donned rubber gloves
to check your bio-illogical play.
Here's hoping you get hepatitis-A.
George Dance
>
> Sonnet
The title does nothing, but I’d consider it a working title only; I
expect the real title will reveal itself after a few rereads.
> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
A good first line: sounds perfectly natural. It starts banal – ‘You
look at me with eyes’ (what else?) – but that’s quickly blown away
with ‘I can’t perceive’, and becomes a paradox – “eyes I can’t
perceive”. That’s an interesting paradox – he (I’ll call him ‘he’ for
convenience, because I’m thinking of the speaker as ‘she’) – is
looking at her, she knows he’s looking, but she can’t perceive his
eyes. Why not? I want to know, so I’m already hooked.
> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
This is exactly the type of line I like to read and to write myself.
Again it sounds like all natural speech, except that one phrase,
‘pillowed fortress’, an language choice that one would never hear in
natural speech. That draws all the attention to that phrase; a good
thing because it’s (1) an arresting image of contrasts – pillows are
so soft and a fortress so hard and forbidding – that calls out for a
sustained look. needs some sustained thought. ‘Pillowed’ makes me
think of bed, which makes the meaning of the paradox clear: she can’t
read him except when they’re in bed. But why is the bed a ‘fortress’?
That connotes troubles surrounding their relationship; I get the idea
this is an illicit affair of some kind (which could be why she worries
about what he’s thinking). .
> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
Again natural speech except for one phrase ‘flicker ciphers’; again to
put all the weight of the line on the one phrase, ‘flicker ciphers.’
Which is (1) another arresting image, (2) interesting sonically
because of the assonance/near-rhyme ‘flicker ciphers’, and (3) fully
explains the 1st line’s paradox: she can see his eyes, but she can’t
*read* them.
> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
A third line in the same vein: ordinary speech (though ‘contrived’
stands out a bit, as it fits the rhythm so well) except for the one
phrase that leaps out: ‘wanton glints’. ‘Wanton’ is excellent: the
lust shines out (making me think of ‘bedroom eyes’, while scrupulously
avoiding that cliche).
‘Glints’ is also a great word, one I used once (in a sonnet but a
completely different context) – like ‘flicker’, it tells me these
looks are momentary things, that come and are gone in an instant..
I’d swirch ‘have’ here with ‘make’ in the other line. ‘Have’ could
include passivity or indifference, while ‘make’ connotes action and
will, and I think it’s the action or will that would get her to leave,
while indifference would get her to leave. Aside from that, though the
meaning is clear from both L2 and L4: she doesn’t know what he’s
thinking except when he looks at her with lust. An excellent first
quatrain all around.
> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
‘San Francisco’ is a beautiful touch, for the sound; it simply rolls
into its metrical place, and for the evoking the scene of a city
‘buried in the mist’. It’s a good cognate: going through her
relationship, not knowing what he’s really thinking, is like moving
through mist without being able to see the landmarks.
> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
I don’t know Coit Tower, but I can imagine the lights winking on and
off like on our CN Tower, which is enough of a visual image for me. It
brilliantly extends the ‘mist’ metaphor: all one can see is the
momentary winking on and off of the lights, just as all she can see in
the relationship is the flickering and glinting of the signals from
his eyes.
> To parse a warning when another gist
This is the first line that sounds a tad artificial; maybe that’s
because it loses me a bit. I get that the lights ‘parse’ as in spell
out a warning, but (like his eyes) they don’t always do that. And
what’s ‘another gist’? ‘Gist’ makes me think of ‘nub’, the main point
(so there shouldn’t be more than one). I looked the word up and got
‘machine translation’ or ‘intestimal tumor’, none of which seem to
fit. It looks like nothing more than a way to avoid the obvious rhyme
of ‘kissed.’
> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
‘Forecasts’ makes me think the ‘gist’ was a translation: in some way
the driftwood is telling her about the relationship is like, if she
could only read it. But that’s all tentative; the meaning is starting
to slip away from me.
Why driftwood on a beach? Is that where they are, down by the bay
looking at Coit Tower and the city buried in the mist?
> We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
‘Trans-shifting’ is an interesting word, which I think I’d have to
read and think a bit more before understanding. Is their relationship
turning into the mist or the night, being buried in it like San
Francisco?
> The hazy border that would know its end,
‘Hazy border’ is nice because it again makes me think of the mist; but
now I’m starting to think I’m the one in the mist. How or why would
the border know its end? It feels like I’ve moved to a different
sonnet; I’ve shifted, in the mist, over to a Hammes-style one where
the meaning is being deliberately hidden for me to decode.
> Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
More of the same. 'Dawning' works well with 'night' previously. But:
What’s the ‘roar’? And why is it ‘dawning’? I’m grasping here, but
I’ll try: the ‘roar’ is the tumult their bed was the ‘fortress’
against: the scandal that knowledge of their relationship would bring
on; and ‘dawning’ means its approaching inevitably. This relationship
is going to have grim consequences, which she knows all to well. Hence
her ambivalence, which she’s been projecting onto him earlier; or
maybe he knows it too, hence his ambivalence?
> Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
A beautiful line, sonically. The repeat of ‘re’ makes both words stand
out magnificently. In sense, the line also makes me think of a coming
scandal, when the world finds out about this relationhip.
> So loosed the firefly afar from home:
This is the first line that sounds artificial: the alliteration of
‘firefly afar’ sounds like it’s just in there for the sake of
alliteration, the meaning is unclear – do fireflies even have homes? –
and the word choices don’t obviously fit: Why a firefly? Because it
glints, flickrs, and winks? OK, but so what? Why is it ‘loosed’ from
its home? What does it mean for it be ‘loosed’ (freed? Is its home a
prison?) All I can think the line means is “Lost like the firefly
afar ...”. I can see why you’d want to avoid that, because you don’t
want to use ‘like’ again, but why ‘loosed’, with its connotations of
escape and getting away, rather than lost?
> It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
I’ve completely lost the sense. This line doesn’t even parse:
‘because ... may roam’? The ‘glimmer’ looks like an obvious tie-in
back to the flashing and glinting of his eyes – ah, his eyes are like
fireflies (I might even steal that, as I think it could be done
better.) But the ending, ‘may roam’, makes me think her main worry,
the ‘gist’ of it, is that he’ll be unfaithful; which is anti-climactic
to the extreme, given what the last quatrain seemed to be portending.
In short, I see a definite decline in readibility throughout: 1-4
impressed me and got me thoroughly engaged with the poem; 9-14 came
across as unclear and contrived; and 5-8 fell in the middle. Still,
1-4 were so good that I’m left with the feeling that I’m the one at
fault for missing the gist of the ending; and that that last is a gist
it would reward me (as much as 1-4 rewarded me for reading) to puzzle
out.
So this is a sonnet I believe I will come back to and reread – and,
bottom line, that’s what makes a good poem, innit?
Will Dockery
wrote:
<snip for brevity>
> and, here's a bonus by the equally and lovely talented JS Carter...
> for those who like this usenet legend stuff.
>
> The Love Bug
>
> Well, if you hear me sniffle then you'll know
> your love has struck me down, just like a bug,
> on Nova or some other science show,
> that turns its victims blue, or swells or plugs
> whatever orifice you need the most.
> I would forgive a scientist gone mad
> like Wilder's Frankenstein, but not the host
> of adolescents making programs plaid
> with cruel cross-purposes, then poking fun
> at we who hope that we are truly loved
> and leap to read the affirmation, stunned
> by your deceit. But I've donned rubber gloves
> to check your bio-illogical play.
> Here's hoping you get hepatitis-A.
Interesting, my friend and collaborator, Gini Woolfolk, is currently
making a big splash with her song Love Bugs... here's the video for
that one, check her out.
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3960114&id=692998932#/video/video.php?v=173116661558
--
"Truck Stop Woman" by Will Dockery (the video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvtQEf7bnfs
Will Dockery
"prettystuzz" <leic...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:leichtes-351517...@news.giganews.com...
> In article <T4idnUmn28QRFJbW...@giganews.com>,
> "Michael Cook" <mic...@ypsiarbor.com> wrote:
>
>> "Karla" <kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:734kg597v7l3u439m...@4ax.com...
>>
>> "You look at me with eyes I can't perceive"
>
> enjambment can
> be your friend.
>
>>
>> That line left me wondering if eyes were looking or you could not
>> perceive
>> some unknown, perhaps its my ADD. In any case; "can't" for gods sake
>> change it to cannot.
>
> Well, in the first place, your wish fulfilled wouldn't scan; and in the
> second, she did write 'cannot' (or 'can not', as she would put it, being
> smart), but you don't know what apostrophes do, do you? I HEART
> apostrophe's!
>
>>
>> The next two lines: esoteric, they ask nothing of me, me the reader, the
>> lover of poetry, they simply tell me things I already know, and wherein
>> lies
>> the fun?
>>
>> If the subject matter (and yes matter matters) were about you and I then
>> the
>> poem knows no bounds, but alas it is not to be, tis yet another you or
>> more
>> correctly "I" poem from which I can neither take nor leave. Perhaps it
>> was
>> not meant to be read?
>
> Good Christ in your pudding already. Why "about you and I" instead of
> the literate 'about you and me'? So you prefer Eliot to Rogers, but when
> have you ever projected your reading inadequacies onto his writing? He
> deserves worshippers like you, and he sure has enough f them.
>
>> Like stolen love letters, or confessions, or a daughters diary.
>>
>> "I knew a woman once, lovely in her bones"
>>
>> Think that's an "I"?
>>
>> " How well her wishes went! She stroked my chin,
>> She taught me Turn, and Counter-turn, and Stand,"
>>
>> naa, not an "I" it's a we!
>>
>> pfft!..
>
> Why don't you just admit you don't understand anything about sonnets or
> lyric poetry instead of pretending not to be stupid?
>>
>> "Like San Francisco buried in the mist"
>>
>> Buried in a mist, a mist!
>> I don't know the same mists as you, see?
>
> Why don't you just admit you don't understand anything about figurative
> language instead of pretending not to be stupid?
The post you're responding to isn't appearing on Google Groups...I suppose
Cook changed his mind and Cythera'd it?
--
"Red Lipped Stranger & other stories" by Will Dockery:
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery
Will Dockery
"Michael Cook" <mic...@ypsiarbor.com> wrote in message
news:T4idnUmn28QRFJbW...@giganews.com...
>
> "Karla" <kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:734kg597v7l3u439m...@4ax.com...
So, does that mean you will or will not be stealing it?
Karla
BLACKPOOLJIMMY says...
Thanks for reading.
Karla
Karla
Thanks for reminding us how good JS Carter's sonnets are. I miss her writing and
comments. In turn, this one reminded me of a song from my favorite musical, Guys
and Dolls, called Adelaide's Lament. Have a listen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCSl7rw4ERI
Will Dockery
A pleasure, Karla.
BTW, here's the latest Shakespeare sonnet sent me, #103, interesting musings
on the muse:
Sonnet #103
Posted:
CIII.
Alack, what poverty my Muse brings forth,
That having such a scope to show her pride,
The argument all bare is of more worth
Than when it hath my added praise beside!
O, blame me not, if I no more can write!
Look in your glass, and there appears a face
That over-goes my blunt invention quite,
Dulling my lines and doing me disgrace.
Were it not sinful then, striving to mend,
To mar the subject that before was well?
For to no other pass my verses tend
Than of your graces and your gifts to tell;
And more, much more, than in my verse can sit
Your own glass shows you when you look in it.
-Wm. Shakespeare
--
"Dream Tears" / Will Dockery & The Shadowville All-Stars
Written by Will Dockery & Brian Mallard / Guitar - Brian Mallard /
Harmonica - Gary Frankfurth / Flute - John Joiner / Vocal - Will Dockery.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gX035Ybafx4
Will Dockery
"Karla" <kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
> When Will Dockery has learned as much as you
When you learn to stop pretending to read my mind, you'll be getting
somewhere, Karla... or maybe you're just suffering from After-Thanksgiving
confusion, again?
Karla
George Dance says...
>
>On Nov 22, 11:33=A0pm, Karla <karl...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> Sonnet
>>
>> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
>> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
>> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
>> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
>> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
>> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
>> To parse a warning when another gist
>> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
>> We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
>> The hazy border that would know its end,
>> Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
>> Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
>> So loosed the firefly afar from home:
>> It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
>>
>> Karla
>
>> Sonnet
>
>expect the real title will reveal itself after a few rereads.
>
>> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
>
>look at me with eyes=92 (what else?) =96 but that=92s quickly blown away
>with =91I can=92t perceive=92, and becomes a paradox =96 =93eyes I can=92t
>perceive=94. That=92s an interesting paradox =96 he (I=92ll call him =91he=
>=92 for
>convenience, because I=92m thinking of the speaker as =91she=92) =96 is
>looking at her, she knows he=92s looking, but she can=92t perceive his
>eyes. Why not? I want to know, so I=92m already hooked.
>
>> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
>
>This is exactly the type of line I like to read and to write myself.
>Again it sounds like all natural speech, except that one phrase,
>natural speech. That draws all the attention to that phrase; a good
>so soft and a fortress so hard and forbidding =96 that calls out for a
>sustained look. needs some sustained thought. =91Pillowed=92 makes me
>think of bed, which makes the meaning of the paradox clear: she can=92t
>read him except when they=92re in bed. But why is the bed a =91fortress=92?
>That connotes troubles surrounding their relationship; I get the idea
>this is an illicit affair of some kind (which could be why she worries
Thanks for liking my two first lines. I don't understand why both you and
Michael want to read the sonnet line by line. The punctuation doesn't limit you.
Since I didn't place a comma at the end of the first line, wouldn't that signal
that you should keep reading? Stuart tags it elsewhere: enjambment.
[btw, are you using only plain text? I'm responding in plain text but it's
picking up HTML or Word code.]
>> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
>
>Again natural speech except for one phrase =91flicker ciphers=92; again to
>put all the weight of the line on the one phrase, =91flicker ciphers.=92
>Which is (1) another arresting image, (2) interesting sonically
>because of the assonance/near-rhyme =91flicker ciphers=92, and (3) fully
>explains the 1st line=92s paradox: she can see his eyes, but she can=92t
>*read* them.
>
>> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
>
>A third line in the same vein: ordinary speech (though =91contrived=92
>stands out a bit, as it fits the rhythm so well) except for the one
>phrase that leaps out: =91wanton glints=92. =91Wanton=92 is excellent: the
>lust shines out (making me think of =91bedroom eyes=92, while scrupulously
>avoiding that cliche).
>=91Glints=92 is also a great word, one I used once (in a sonnet but a
>completely different context) =96 like =91flicker=92, it tells me these
>looks are momentary things, that come and are gone in an instant..
>
>I=92d swirch =91have=92 here with =91make=92 in the other line. =91Have=92 =
>could
>include passivity or indifference, while =91make=92 connotes action and
>will, and I think it=92s the action or will that would get her to leave,
>while indifference would get her to leave. Aside from that, though the
>meaning is clear from both L2 and L4: she doesn=92t know what he=92s
>thinking except when he looks at her with lust. An excellent first
>quatrain all around.
>
>> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
>
>=91San Francisco=92 is a beautiful touch, for the sound; it simply rolls
>into its metrical place, and for the evoking the scene of a city
>=91buried in the mist=92. It=92s a good cognate: going through her
>relationship, not knowing what he=92s really thinking, is like moving
>through mist without being able to see the landmarks.
>
>> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
>
>I don=92t know Coit Tower, but I can imagine the lights winking on and
>off like on our CN Tower, which is enough of a visual image for me. It
>brilliantly extends the =91mist=92 metaphor: all one can see is the
>momentary winking on and off of the lights, just as all she can see in
>the relationship is the flickering and glinting of the signals from
>his eyes.
>
>> To parse a warning when another gist
>
>This is the first line that sounds a tad artificial; maybe that=92s
>because it loses me a bit. I get that the lights =91parse=92 as in spell
>out a warning, but (like his eyes) they don=92t always do that. And
>what=92s =91another gist=92? =91Gist=92 makes me think of =91nub=92, the ma=
>in point
>(so there shouldn=92t be more than one). I looked the word up and got
>=91machine translation=92 or =91intestimal tumor=92, none of which seem to
>fit. It looks like nothing more than a way to avoid the obvious rhyme
>of =91kissed.=92
I will consider. Thanks. I can say with no hint of defensiveness at all that
"kissed" was never under consideration.
>> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
>
>=91Forecasts=92 makes me think the =91gist=92 was a translation: in some w=
>ay
>the driftwood is telling her about the relationship is like, if she
>could only read it. But that=92s all tentative; the meaning is starting
>to slip away from me.
>Why driftwood on a beach? Is that where they are, down by the bay
>looking at Coit Tower and the city buried in the mist?
My "like" is meant for all four lines. They stand in for the first four lines.
>> We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
>
>=91Trans-shifting=92 is an interesting word, which I think I=92d have to
>read and think a bit more before understanding. Is their relationship
>turning into the mist or the night, being buried in it like San
>Francisco?
>
>> The hazy border that would know its end,
>
>=91Hazy border=92 is nice because it again makes me think of the mist; but
>now I=92m starting to think I=92m the one in the mist. How or why would
>the border know its end? It feels like I=92ve moved to a different
>sonnet; I=92ve shifted, in the mist, over to a Hammes-style one where
>the meaning is being deliberately hidden for me to decode.
If you indeed felt a shift while reading it, even if it's not understood, then
I'm half happy. I write elsewhere to Stuart that I'm writing a sonnet as I
imagine Shakespeare would write one, and my play with words, and shifts of
meaning are as I'd imagine him writing. It's my exercise. I'm not unhappy with
it, but I also note what isn't working for my reader.
>> Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
>
>More of the same. 'Dawning' works well with 'night' previously. But:
>What=92s the =91roar=92? And why is it =91dawning=92? I=92m grasping here, =
>but
>I=92ll try: the =91roar=92 is the tumult their bed was the =91fortress=92
>against: the scandal that knowledge of their relationship would bring
>on; and =91dawning=92 means its approaching inevitably. This relationship
>is going to have grim consequences, which she knows all to well. Hence
>her ambivalence, which she=92s been projecting onto him earlier; or
>maybe he knows it too, hence his ambivalence?
>
>> Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
>
>A beautiful line, sonically. The repeat of =91re=92 makes both words stand
>out magnificently. In sense, the line also makes me think of a coming
>scandal, when the world finds out about this relationhip.
>
>> So loosed the firefly afar from home:
>
>This is the first line that sounds artificial: the alliteration of
>=91firefly afar=92 sounds like it=92s just in there for the sake of
>alliteration, the meaning is unclear =96 do fireflies even have homes? =96
>and the word choices don=92t obviously fit: Why a firefly? Because it
>glints, flickrs, and winks? OK, but so what? Why is it =91loosed=92 from
>its home? What does it mean for it be =91loosed=92 (freed? Is its home a
>prison?) All I can think the line means is =93Lost like the firefly
>afar ...=94. I can see why you=92d want to avoid that, because you don=92t
>want to use =91like=92 again, but why =91loosed=92, with its connotations o=
>f
>escape and getting away, rather than lost?
>
>> It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
>
>I=92ve completely lost the sense. This line doesn=92t even parse:
>=91because ... may roam=92? The =91glimmer=92 looks like an obvious tie-in
>back to the flashing and glinting of his eyes =96 ah, his eyes are like
>fireflies (I might even steal that, as I think it could be done
>better.) But the ending, =91may roam=92, makes me think her main worry,
>the =91gist=92 of it, is that he=92ll be unfaithful; which is anti-climacti=
>c
>to the extreme, given what the last quatrain seemed to be portending.
>
>In short, I see a definite decline in readibility throughout: 1-4
>impressed me and got me thoroughly engaged with the poem; 9-14 came
>across as unclear and contrived; and 5-8 fell in the middle. Still,
>1-4 were so good that I=92m left with the feeling that I=92m the one at
>fault for missing the gist of the ending; and that that last is a gist
>it would reward me (as much as 1-4 rewarded me for reading) to puzzle
>out.
>
>So this is a sonnet I believe I will come back to and reread =96 and,
>bottom line, that=92s what makes a good poem, innit?
I hope it is something you'll come back to, reread and make sense out of, and
ultimately enjoy.
Thank you for talking through the poem with us.
Karla
Karla
>
>
>"Karla" <kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote in message
>news:734kg597v7l3u439m...@4ax.com...
>
>
>some unknown, perhaps its my ADD. In any case; "can't" for gods sake
>change it to cannot.
I'd suggest reading the poem as it's punctuated rather than line by line. As
already commented, I've employed enjambment.
>The next two lines: esoteric, they ask nothing of me, me the reader, the
>lover of poetry, they simply tell me things I already know, and wherein lies
>the fun?
>
>If the subject matter (and yes matter matters) were about you and I then the
>poem knows no bounds, but alas it is not to be, tis yet another you or more
>correctly "I" poem from which I can neither take nor leave. Perhaps it was
>not meant to be read?
>Like stolen love letters, or confessions, or a daughters diary.
Since you've mentioned subject matter as well as personal pronouns, I'm
wondering if you also dislike Shakespeare sonnets? What motivated me to write a
sonnet recently is my reading through the Shakespeare sonnets. I tried to write
from Shakespeare's mind, with his toolbox, his vernacular. I mention this
because a great many sonnets are you and I poems about nothing new at all. Am I
not understanding your point?
>"I knew a woman once, lovely in her bones"
>
>Think that's an "I"?
>
>" How well her wishes went! She stroked my chin,
>She taught me Turn, and Counter-turn, and Stand,"
>
>naa, not an "I" it's a we!
>
>pfft!..
>
>"Like San Francisco buried in the mist"
>
>"The mist" what the?????????
>Buried in a mist, a mist!
>I don't know the same mists as you, see?
>
>The first part is muddled, past line 9 things improve
>But the shared "mist" and eyes looking you cant [sic] see have tainted.
>
> "Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach"
>
>Not my reach!
>
>Thanks for posting
>mdc
Someone's dislike of a poem can be just as helpful as a critique. Thank you for
reading and commenting.
Karla
Karla
>
>
>"Karla" <kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> When Will Dockery has learned as much as you
>
>When you learn to stop pretending to read my mind, you'll be getting
>somewhere, Karla... or maybe you're just suffering from After-Thanksgiving
>confusion, again?
Will, that wasn't meant as an insult. I'm sorry you took it that way.
Karla
Will Dockery
> In article <7db4$4b145804$d8baf760$13...@KNOLOGY.NET>, Will Dockery says...
>
> >> When Will Dockery has learned as much as you
>
> >When you learn to stop pretending to read my mind, you'll be getting
> >somewhere, Karla... or maybe you're just suffering from After-Thanksgiving
> >confusion, again?
>
> Will, that wasn't meant as an insult. I'm sorry you took it that way.
Ah, thanks for the quick response, Karla... and to the point, I'd be
proud to someday learn as much as Stuart knew, say 30-40 years ago.
Peter J Ross
<kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> Sonnet
>
> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
Two very stilted lines. Can you imagine ever speaking them aloud in
real life?
> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
"make" and "have" mean the same thing here.
> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
> To parse a warning when another gist
> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
> We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
> The hazy border that would know its end,
> Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
> Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
> So loosed the firefly afar from home:
> It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
I like "Dover Beach" a lot, but it's never occurred to me to convert
it into a dull sonnet.
I'm trying to find something to like here, but all I can see is crap
like "hazy border", "vows repent" and (unforgivably) "afar from home".
It's a joke. It must be a joke. Tell me it's a joke,
>
> Karla
--
PJR :-)
Karla
wrote:
>In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:33:53 -0800, Karla
><kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Sonnet
>>
>> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
>> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
>
>Two very stilted lines. Can you imagine ever speaking them aloud in
>real life?
Moreso than other lines of iambic pentameter I've read (Milton comes to
mind) and no, not really. I'm trying to think of a sonnet where I'd speak
the lines. Do you have an example?
>> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
>> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
>
>"make" and "have" mean the same thing here.
You don't think 'make' connotes force and control while 'have' is softer,
carrying an added sexual nuance?
>> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
>> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
>> To parse a warning when another gist
>> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
>> We feast in nights trans-shifting and explore
>> The hazy border that would know its end,
>> Whose ears to close against the dawning roar,
>> Where vows repent and acts soon reprehend.
>> So loosed the firefly afar from home:
>> It sparks because, but glimmer tricks, may roam.
>
>I like "Dover Beach" a lot, but it's never occurred to me to convert
>it into a dull sonnet.
If there's one positive I can take from your reading and comments, it's
that my poor sonnet invoked Dover Beach for you!
>I'm trying to find something to like here, but all I can see is crap
>like "hazy border", "vows repent" and (unforgivably) "afar from home".
>
>It's a joke. It must be a joke. Tell me it's a joke,
It failed miserably for you! What to do . . . I rather like it.
As I wrote Michael, dislike can be just as helpful as praise.
Thanks for reading & commenting.
Karla
>> Karla
Peter J Ross
<kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Dec 2009 01:56:59 +0000, Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>>In alt.arts.poetry.comments on Sun, 22 Nov 2009 20:33:53 -0800, Karla
>><kar...@NEVERcomcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Sonnet
>>>
>>> You look at me with eyes I can't perceive
>>> Outside the pillowed fortress where we play,
>>
>>Two very stilted lines. Can you imagine ever speaking them aloud in
>>real life?
>
> Moreso than other lines of iambic pentameter I've read (Milton comes to
> mind) and no, not really. I'm trying to think of a sonnet where I'd speak
> the lines. Do you have an example?
My own sonnets, obviously. :-)
>>> They flicker ciphers meant to make me leave
>>> Or wanton glints contrived to have me stay.
>>
>>"make" and "have" mean the same thing here.
>
> You don't think 'make' connotes force and control while 'have' is softer,
> carrying an added sexual nuance?
No. I don't think that.
>>> Like San Francisco buried in the mist,
>>> Coit Tower winking just beyond our reach,
"Like San Francisco in the mist,
Coit Tower,"
"buried", "winking" and the odiously trite "just beyond our reach" are
insufferably bad.
>>> To parse a warning when another gist
>>> Forecasts in driftwood scattered on the beach.
On second thoughts, these two lines are on the right side of the
cliche wall.
>>> We feast
This is where you really spoil it. You don't even say what you're
feasting *on*!
<...>
> If there's one positive I can take from your reading and comments, it's
> that my poor sonnet invoked Dover Beach for you!
"on the beach", "dawning roar" etc. I didn't intend a compliment.
Will Dockery
>
What was that about Irony Meters exploding, again?
For Karla, Sonnet #107:
Sonnet #107
Posted:
CVII.
Not mine own fears, nor the prophetic soul
Of the wide world dreaming on things to come,
Can yet the lease of my true love control,
Supposed as forfeit to a confined doom.
The mortal moon hath her eclipse endured
And the sad augurs mock their own presage;
Incertainties now crown themselves assured
And peace proclaims olives of endless age.
Now with the drops of this most balmy time
My love looks fresh, and death to me subscribes,
Since, spite of him, I'll live in this poor rhyme,
While he insults o'er dull and speechless tribes:
And thou in this shalt find thy monument,
When tyrants' crests and tombs of brass are spent.
-Wm. Shakespeare
--
"Truck Stop Woman" by Will Dockery (the video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kvtQEf7bnfs
Peter J Ross
Dockery <will.d...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> Stuart is so pretentious
>
> What was that about Irony Meters exploding, again?
Mine hasn't exploded recently, but it's just bleeped to inform me that
you're rather vague about what "pretentious" means.
Will Dockery
> > Peter J Ross <p...@example.invalid> wrote:
>
> >> Stuart is so pretentious
>
> > What was that about Irony Meters exploding, again?
>
> Mine
"We know." -Dennis M. Hammes, Litt. D.
--
New poetry & music recordings by Will Dockery
http://www.myspace.com/willdockery