Definitions

[eric]

perhaps we live a turning point at which we redefine the old and define the new world, also in the realm of poetry

Bar, every instant of every day of every month and year is a moment like that, but we only recognize the particularly salient ones every 500 years or so.  So to argue from a chronological oddity in order to prove a prosodic proposition is to make a mathematical statement from scrambled duck eggs.  It can be done, but not in the abstract.  That's why I thought your argument of chronology could not win.  Rather than burden this thread with the foregoing, I proposed to PM you. 

Now that the PMs have started 12 hours late, I will take this moment to give a  public explanation.  And to apologize for patronizing, but your Ascent poem was a good one, I do not care what Yamrus thought!  And for some other reason, but for the life of me I forget.  Your turn with the PM.

[Mark H]

Bar

I've been racking my brains trying to come up with an everyday example of what B is saying. I think it's something like this. I have a pan of un-mashed mashed potatoes.

and I would say, that could never happen. They could be mashed, they could be un-mashed, or the pan could contain a mix of mashed and un-mashed, but never un-mashed mashed.

Mark

[Amie]

That's a good analogy Mark.

Bar, you said B didn't invent the term 'free verse sonnet', but it really seems that he has. As Nelodra pointed out, none of us have been able to find that exact term anywhere, not even B, when pressed. He was able to find the equivalent of 'mashed mixed with unmashed', but nowhere 'unmashed mashed'.

The bizarre thing was how abusive he got in defense of the oxymoron. As Mark pointed out in his previous post, none of us are die hard traditionalists who are against innovation. It was just the logical contradiction of saying you could have unmashed mashed orators that was confusing.

[Amie]

Sorry, that should be 'potatoes', not 'orators'. I'm on my phone and the screen won't let me expand enough to correct it. Wanted to add more, but will have to wait til I'm at a proper computer. Basically, it just seemed to come down to semantics in the end, and illogical semantics at that, which made me feel that it was just about arguing and acting superior rather than actually discussing poetry. No new concepts were brought to the table, we never learned anything we didn't already know, all we had was a defense of an oxymoron riddled with snide personal digs.

[Brownlee]

Amie -

As Nelodra pointed out, none of us have been able to find that exact term anywhere, not even B, when pressed.

Then was this post (quoted again below) invisible or something? (It seems to be as no-one has paid any attention to this 'incovenient truth'). Here it is, clear as day, proof that free verse sonnets have been recognised as a form, by an independent source, in print, (and in the 20th century as well). No one has been able to provide independent evidence that categorically states 'you can't have a free verse sonnet because...'; all there have been are people's own opinions and interpretations of other definitions.

I did not invent the term. I was merely aware and open-minded enough to accept its existence.

This is taken from the introduction to Don Paterson's book '101 Sonnets, from Shakespeare to Heaney' (Faber and Faber, 1999):

"Somehow it crawled out into the twentieth century intact; thereafter the sonnet becomes so popular and varied in its forms that its story becomes impossible and probably pointless to delineate other than through the pages of this book: almost every major twentieth-century poet has written sonnets - and sonnets strictly rhymed, free-rhymed and unrhymed, in long lines, short lines and free verse, with stanza breaks and turns in the strangest places imaginable." (p. xiii)

So in answer to your question, yes, poets do call their own free verse sonnets free verse sonnets.

You asked me to provide evidence of the term being used - there it is.  What else can I do if you choose to ignore it?

[Brownlee]

Otherwise - Bar - congratulations! You've invented a new form of the sonnet. The free verse sonnet. Wow - how inventive and creative you are! Well done for breaking down the boundaries!

[eric]

This discussion is getting a bit tedious and repetitive.  Don Paterson's quote, now quoted two or three times, does not say what Brownlee says it does.  Yet, despite saying he would say no more, he insists it does.  It is the comment of an advocate of his point of view.  Yet Brownlee insists it is authoritative.  I showed that Elizabeth Bishop's poem was a non-opinion, but rather than argue that straight-on, Mr. Brownlee simply assumed I said it was. Mr. Brownlee argued in the most vituperative terms for the existence of a free-verse sonnet, then congratulated Bar for inventing a "new" term, the free-verse sonnet.  We could argue into the night, and already have, over things like this, and did again, and are beginning to again.  I submit that there is nothing further to be gained from this discussion and that the thread should be locked.

[Brownlee]

Don Patterson's [sic] quote, now quoted two or three times, does not say what Brownlee says it does. It is the comment of an advocate of his point of view.

1. Yes it does say what I say: that there is such a thing as a free verse sonnet. How does it not say this?
2. It is an independent statement of fact that proves what I was saying was a statement of fact. I don't see an equivalent independent statement that disproves this from you or anyone else.

I submit that there is nothing further to be gained from this discussion and that the thread should be locked.

The surest sign you've lost the argument. Shame you couldn't have admitted this days ago.

[twisted wheel]

hi brownlee,

let's cut to the chase - write one and post it.

so far, you have argued your point and critted poems but not shown us any of your work. here is the ideal opportunity to do so.

[eric]

B., We have shown, through Mary Oliver and others as well as application of pure and applied logic, the negation of your theory.  You have relied again and again on an inference from Paterson as well as lists of poets from Emily Dickinson onwards, and a free verse poem called Sonnet from Bishop.  I have tellingly compared that to her free verse poem called Sestina.  You did not respond.  I have questioned your choice of poets.  You did not respond.

Mark showed that the main general authority you rely on directly contradicts your argument.  Amie has ably refuted your points while demonstrating the futility of authority-based argument.  There is nothing left to argue about. Unless you want to take up MC's challenge to write one yourself, this argument is over.

[Mark H]

B

Don't you think Patterson was just getting a bit carried away? He's writing an introduction to a book of sonnets, enthusiastically selling us on the wonders of the form, and makes a slight slip in his use of language. But even if it wasn't a slip, and he thought long and hard before making the statement, then where does that leave us? How would he justify single handedly changing the definition of free verse?

M

[eric]

As I said, the argument is done.  What Paterson might have thought he or others were doing, though he did not say it, has been shown to be spurious. If the potato is mashed, so be it.  If not, let's have baked spuds, or fried ones.  End of story.

[Bar]

Would you imagine? Mark Pattison asserted that "... the so-called sonnets of Shakespeare are not sonnets at all, but fourteen line stanzas." !!!

[eric]

except that pattison was wrong, the eliabethan sonnet was well into existence before shakespeare took it over.  

[drab]

Jeez guys, I never realised that poetry was so technical, and so boring!