TeaTimeSunday
TEA TIME in L.A. THE BRONZE / 3.20-5.22.02
RESTORED ARCHIVE OF DELETED FORUM POSTS (NO LINKS OPERATIVE)
BOKE
(for 3/22 Tea Time) Why I post in Shakesperean Sonnets (repost WITHOUT ITALIC)


My case for rhetorical verse in the Buffyverse PART 1 (4-sonnet sequence)
Posted by: forensicpopouri - Mar 22, 2002, 4:42 PM

(1) ALTHOUGH I'VE LET THE MISPERCEPTION FLOAT

that I'm attempting poetry -- that's wrong.

You never write a poem to win a vote.

True poets rarely write a hit pop song.


A poem expresses with great sublety

a private view with metaphors unique.

Few readers will agree on what they see.

Great poetry's beyond a glib critique.


No -- what I'm writing is pure rhetoric,

but like a work of art within constraints

inscribed in sonnet's format I must pick

the words that fit "my case," so as one paints . . .


. . . one's argument, you're always in suspense

of your conclusion, 'til you reach the fence.


(2) BUT IF "THAT'S ALL IT IS," WHAT IS THE POINT?

There's several, so let's go one by one.

THE FIRST: though formal verse seems out of joint

with our computer age, is that it's fun


THE SECOND (more important) it's concise.

Philosophy assumes we have the time

for a long walk through reason to a vise

of uncontested Q.E.D. -- but rhyme . . .


. . . is no more arbitrary than the path

philosophers trace though their knowledge sphere.

Logicians think an argument's like math.

But if most TV-watching jurors hear . . .


. . . long-winding clarity, they will tune out.


A sonnet guarantees a short, quick route.

[END OF PART 1 / CONTINUED IN PART 2]


you speak



Responses



NOTE: THE ORIGINAL FORMAT-DESIGN (NextLeft FOR UPN) OF THIS PUBLIC FORUM PAGE
HAS BEEN RESURRECTED TO PRESERVE THE VISUAL CONTEXT AND FORM OF THE POSTS
IN THIS EXTENDED ONLINE CONVERSATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF HISTORICAL RECORD.
BOTTOM LINE: THIS RECONSTRUCTION IS FOR NON-COMMERCIAL EDUCATIONAL USE ONLY.