I hate to be a downer, but I really don't like Sonnets. I think the entire thing is really contrived, it's like driving with a flat tire to make a point. I think that the purpose of writing is to convey thoughts and emotions and that is best done without the constraints of length or rhyme structure which is really why I dislike these Sonnets, especially the Shakespearean ones. I think that Sonnets have their purpose as a writing exercise or as a way to force one's mind to explain something in an awkward manor, but for enjoyment the only thing that grants me less is when poems are broken up into "artistic" formatting. I don't like experimental films, I don't like experimental writing.
I mean whats the point of writing about some girl you love or how nice a sunset is if you need to wrench your language around in order to accommodate a certain style you are striving for?
I was reading Sonnet 117 and asked myself that same questions. Shakespeare point is not amplified by his circumlocuitious delivery, rather it is obscured beneath rhyme structure. I think Dim Lady really exemplifies my point, because while it is probably supposed to be a satire of society, our vernacular, and the things we lift high, it really brings out how disconnected and unflattering the style is. I can't imagine how bad it would have sounded if Mullen trying to twist the words around and manipulate the language in order to make it rhyme. Good poetry shouldn't even be acknowledgeable as poetry to the casual listener.
No comments:
Post a Comment