On Shakespearean Sonnets- The Innovator vs. The Purist

based on an encounter over the Shakespearean Sonnet, between an innovator and a purist, right here on AP no less...!

taken from the poem "100"




#67

Two Poets Dialog on a Shakespearean Sonnet




poet A is a purist, poet B is an innovator...

Purist: There are several aspects about your Sonnet that are not very ‘Shakespearean’!

Innovator: Ah, my friend, that brings us to the age-old argument- tradition over innovation! Is there anything you are specifically referring to?

Purist: Yes, first your use of contractions, “it’s” and the like, I was told never to use contractions in a Shakespearean Sonnet, and this by a well-respected editor!

Innovator: Never? NEVER?!!! I’ll bet the editor did not mean never! I believe that there are settings where such contractions are not only effective, but essential! Take my Shakespearean Sonnet set in the American Wild West with a bandit speaking, for example, if I did not use contractions it would give the bandit more culture than he deserves! Also, isn’t ‘Tis and ‘Twas used by Shakespeare?

Purist: Yes, but they were accepted formal forms. Another point- using a Shakespearean Sonnet in an American Wild West setting is a complete misuse of it! It does not reflect the Shakespearean ‘mood’ of the form, nor its setting, nor its diction...

Innovator: Ah, so you are valuing tradition over innovation, propriety over energy, acceptability over excitement... let me ask you, was not Shakespeare an innovator himself, as his sonnets are a case in point? Otherwise he would have been writing Homerian Epics! Does not a purist value the innovative aspect of Shakespeare, along with his moods, periods, dictions, and settings?

Purist: It is true Shakespeare was an innovator, but innovation, such as a Wild West setting, is not what a reader would expect from a Shakespearean Sonnet! Innovation should not be a part of something as well-defined and concrete as a Shakespearean Sonnet!

Innovator: Let me see if I have this right- let's say a purist is getting ready to read my Shakespearean sonnet, he has read thousands, and is expecting a certain diction and setting and mood, he pops his popcorn, eases into his favorite lazy-boy reclining chair, dims the lights, lights the incense, puts on his favorite background music, in essence goes to great lengths to get everything ready to read a fine, traditional Shakespearean Sonnet, and BAM! A Wild West setting! He is furious, completely disappointed, and feels he has just been cheated and has wasted all his popcorn...

Purist: Yes, something like that!

Innovator- So what you are saying is that a Shakespearean Sonnet should be written to a purist’s expectations... let me ask you, what percentage of the readers will be purists, and what percentage just want to see a technically correct, entertaining, innovative, enlightening poem that takes a form to new vistas?

Purist: A very small percentage will be purists, it may be true, but to get to the larger audience in publishing, you often must get through the purists first! If you want new vistas, leave the Shakespearean Sonnet alone!

Innovator: Are not most people just plain tired of the same-old, same-old?

Purist: No. Most want to see the best example of a given form! The real question here is what aspects are of most value in a certain form- I say that, in a Shakespearean Sonnet, traditional values are more important than innovation... also, writing to an original form offer the reader time-period comparisons between cultures and centuries...

Innovator: But you are leaving out one important fact- there are already thousands upon thousands of said sonnets in the expected and traditional purist dictions, settings, topics, moods, and forms, isn’t it also of value to add something new to an obviously ailing form?

Purist: No! A Shakespearean Sonnet is well-defined and should be left as such! Call your sonnet something else!

Innovator: There is one other phenomenon- I’ve only written a half-dozen sonnets, Shakespearean or otherwise, in my catalog of 700+ writings, and I can now see that a poet’s first outings in a form will be wild and crazy; later, after he settles down, he will endeavor to create a sonnet in its purest form. Now this means that a poet should not write a ‘pure’ sonnet until near the end of his career, after he has developed some sophistication... so in time I too will endeavor to create a pure Shakespearean Sonnet true in all its aspects, until then, can you not allow for my youthful creativity and exuberance?!!!

Purist: Yes, but it will not be taken seriously, and it will not be a good example of a Shakespearean Sonnet...

Innovator: Well, let’s dwell on my Wild West piece to analyze what you have just said- it’s form is flawless, the meter strong and entertaining, the story fresh and engaging, the word usage is by a well-honed poet of many writes, yet none of this matters to a purist... does that not make the purist almost completely blind in an overall poetic sense?

Purist: Not blind, just selective...

Innovator: So you are saying a Shakespearean Sonnet should be judged only by the one mood, one setting, one voice, one period, and one diction that the original one-hundred and fifty-four were written in?

Purist: Yes!

Innovator: Yawn!

Purist: lol I will await your sophistication and the end of your career, when you finally endeavor to write that pure Shakespearean Sonnet, for that is what I will truly enjoy!

Innovator: Yes, you and the three other purists out there! lol

Purist: Until next time, innovator!

Innovator: Yes, and a good day to you, too, purist!

(that was a me-debating-myself piece; lucky we parted on good terms...)
(initiated by a discussion with Ms. Masterblaster back in '06, and finished by me by taking both sides as far as I could...) (yes, arguing with myself! ) (to save Ms. Blaster from the agony...! )