Mark Jarman (1952 - ) is a New Formalist. He takes traditional forms (for example, the Petrarchan sonnet) and applies to them a twenty-first century spin. Jarman grew up in Southern California, where his father was a minister. He is currently the centennial Professor of English at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee.
Here are some especially interesting/useful websites to familiarize you with Jarman:
a brief guide to New Formalism
a recording of Jarman reading Ground Swell
a January 1999 interview with Jarman published in The Cortland Review, in which he discusses his poem "The Word 'Answer'"(which is like four sonnets together):
"The Word 'Answer'"
"Prayer exerts an influence upon God's action, even
upon his existence. This is what the word 'answer' means."
-- Karl Barth, Prayer
Lightning walks across the shallow seas,
Stick figures putting feet down hard
Among the molecules. Meteors dissolve
And drop their pieces in a mist of iron,
Drunk through atomic skin like a dreamy wine.
The virus that would turn a leaf dark red
Seizes two others that would keep it green.
They spread four fingers like a lizard's hand.
Into this random rightness comes the prayer,
A change of weather, a small shift of degree
That heaves a desert where a forest sweated,
And asks creation to return an answer.
That's all it wants: a prayer just wants an answer,
And twists time in a knot until it gets it.
There's the door. Will anybody get it?
That's what he's wondering; the bath's still warm;
And by the time he towels off and puts on
His pajamas, robe, and slippers and goes down,
They'll be gone, won't they? There's the door again;
And nobody's here to answer it but him.
Perhaps they'll go away. But it's not easy,
Relaxing in the tub, reading the paper,
With someone at the front door, ringing and pounding,
And -- that sounds like glass -- breaking in.
At least the bathroom door's securely bolted.
Or is that any assurance in this case?
He might as well go find out what's the matter.
Whoever it is must really want ... something.
We ask for bread, he makes his body bread.
We ask for daily life, and every day,
We get a life, or a facsimile,
Or else we get a tight place in a crowd
Or test results with the prognosis -- bad.
We ask and what is given is the answer,
For we can always see it as an answer,
Distorted as it may be, from our God.
What shall we ask for then? For his return,
Like the bereaved parents with the monkey's paw,
Wishing, then wishing again? The last answer,
When we have asked for all that we can ask for,
May be the end of time, our mangled child,
And in the doorway, dead, the risen past.
With this prayer I am making up a God
On a gray day, prophesying snow.
I pray that God be immanent as snow
When it has fallen thickly, a deep God.
With this prayer I am making up a God
Who answers prayer, responding like the snow
To footprints and the wind, to a child in snow
Making an angel who will speak for God.
God, I am thinking of you now as snow,
Descending like the answer to a prayer,
This prayer that you will be made visible,
Drifting and deepening, a dazzling, slow
Acknowledgment, out of the freezing air,
As dangerous as it is beautiful.
-Mark Jarman
Finally, here's a performance of Jarman's Unholy Sonnet 20 ("If God survives us, will his kingdom come?") set to music:
Prompts for Tuesday (select one):
1)Pick one of Jarman's Unholy Sonnets and discuss it in depth. Is Jarman's poem a sonnet? Why or why not? How does it differ from Donne's poetry? How is it similar? Do you believe Jarman is still a formalist if he takes such liberties (ie, for you, when is a sonnet no longer a sonnet?)
2)Examine one of Jarman's Unholy Sonnets in relation to one of Jarman's longer poems in the packet (or "The Word 'Answer'") Would the sonnet have worked better in longer form, or the longer poem been more effective condensed into a sonnet?
Please be as specific as possible, and remember to PROOFREAD your response before you post. As always, I'm available to answer any questions.
I noticed that in Mark Jarman’s “Unholy Sonnets” that God is often described as having strong emotions. In Sonnet 19 I feel that he is describing God as angry and hurtful. It seems that he feels like God will snap at any moments if something goes in the world wrong. This is a very different approach to anything that I have ever seen before. Normally, in reading about God, God is looked at as always good and always in control. It was strange for me to read something that regarded God in an angry way.
ReplyDeleteIn Sonnet 19 the speaker of the poem cannot sleep. He is lying awake in bed thinking about God and hoping that nothing will make God any angrier than he already is. In this sonnet he personifies God as a younger man. However, he describes God as being a strong man. This assumption is very different from other words because God is typically not assigned with a gender. These poems to have a very dark feel to them. They are grim and sad and do not look at the bright side of things. I think that when he talks about God waiting at the top of a fenced hallway he is talking about the journey to heaven and God’s judgment of us. However, I have a hard time understanding the final two lines in the poem.
I believe that the works of Jarman can still be considered as sonnets. Even though they have a very different context than those of John Donne, they still follow a similar rhyme scheme to the other sonnets. And while reading them, they still seem to read like the other sonnets. Although Jarman’s sonnets still address issues about God, they view God in a completely different way. In many of Jaraman’s sonnets, I found him asking questioning many of the traits and qualities of God. I think that the main point of the poem is the speaker not being able to sleep because he is overcome with thoughts about God and what will happen to him after his death.
For a poem to not be a sonnet I think that it would have no pattern for a rhyme scheme. After reading sonnets, I think that they are very distinctly read. They have a way of flowing as they are being read. Because of the iambic pentameter they read more as a song than as a poem. If these poems were not sonnets the lines would be all different lengths only saying what they intend to say, rather than finding words that fit in a different way. It would have no rhyme pattern whatsoever and read more along the lines of a typical modern day poem. To me, sonnets feel very well thought out and planned. Many modern day poems that I have read seem to be expressing the exact feelings of the writer, whereas sonnets must incorporate other words to fit the rhyme scheme and may not be able to express their feelings in such a clear way. Sonnets leave room for the reader to fill in the blanks of the meaning.
Prompt 1:
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through Mark Jarman’s Unholy Sonnets, I was amazed and surprised at the way he went about writing them. I like how, in most of the sonnets, he did not conform to the normal way of writing a sonnet with the typical octet and sestet rhyme scheme as well as the iambic pentameter rhythm. Out of all of the Unholy Sonnets, I was most attracted to sonnet 12. I was able to relate best to this sonnet because I felt its subject matter and overall message was most relatable me and to my everyday life.
As I began to read the poem, I took notice to the fact in his first line he emphasizes the word job, “There was a pious man upright as Job.” This made me think that the man he is talking about is an extremely religious man who holds his religion as his way of life, almost like a job. He then goes on to describe this religious man as being so religious that he prays almost every minute of everyday. “In fact, more pious, more upright, who prayed the way most people thoughtlessly enjoy their stream of consciousness.” I like how he compared the way the man prayed to the way people use their consciousness. He implies that people are lazy and let their minds go to waste thinking about nothing and concentrating on nothing, while this man uses his mind to the fullest, concentrating on God. He says people let their minds wonder, focusing on unimportant and useless information. He then goes on to say how this religious man is also a very successful farmer who awards all of his happiness, success, and prosperity to God and God only. “And as he gained in bumper crops and cattle, he greeted each success with grave amens.” The first eight lines are decent in that the mood is somewhat calm and positive. He talks about a successful farmer who is very religious and glorifies God everyday of his life. This makes you think that the rest of the poem this man might be rewarded somehow for his loyalty to the Lord, or maybe he continues to have success and live this happy life he has been given.
Consequently this is not the case. In the next six lines, Jarman completely switches the mood and tone of the poem to a sad and depressing setting. He starts off by explaining that the farmer was returning from the bank to find his field completely flooded, destroying everything he owned including his family. I especially liked the third line is the sestet, “His cows, his kids, his wife, and all his stuff,” and the use of the word stuff at the end. First of all, I found it extremely interesting that he chose to say that along with the destruction of his crops and his property, his family was taken as well. This gives you the image that the flood was horrible, bad enough to take the lives of the ones he loved, and leave him with absolutely nothing. I especially liked the use of the word stuff to describe all of his life’s possessions and the things he has worked so hard for. He could have used a different word, something more specific, but the word stuff stands out and gave me the impression that everything the man ever had was gone. Even though the word is vague, it almost appears so specific that once I read it I got the image of this barren land that once held this man’s life.
The rest of the poem describes how the man returns and is shocked, confused, and angry as to why something so horrible could happen to such a good man. He asks god why this horrible thing has happened to him, and we are given quite a shocking yet particularly amusing response, “And God grumped from his rain cloud, ‘I can’t say. Just something about you pisses me off.’” You get this image of an angry God that dislikes how this man is so faithful and so successful that he has to do something so horrible to him just because he doesn’t like him. This whole sonnet, more importantly these last two lines made me think of my own life and how when something seems to be going so great, something bad always happens that screws everything up. There have been times where I have been so happy with life and school that I feel so blessed to be given this happiness that there couldn’t possibly be anything that could go wrong. Who am I trying to kid right? Of course there is always something, be it a bad test or something more life altering, that has to get in the way and ruin the happiness that I have gained. You always feel like this happens to you because either God is mad at you for something or is punishing you since you have been doing so well. I bet if you asked everyone in the class they two would say something like this has happened to them at least once in their life. I laughed at the end of this poem because of how much it touched me so close to home and how realistic it is.
I believe that Jarman’s poem is a sonnet. Even though it doesn’t follow the technicalities of a sonnet (i.e. rhyme scheme and iambic pentameter) it still has an octet that presents an idea or statement, and also a sestet that counteracts the octet and answers the question or statement. It differs from Donne’s poetry in that I feel Jarman puts God in a darker and meaner light. He makes God appear either careless or unfair most of the time. I got the image of God as a dark and dreaded creature in some of his sonnets. On the other hand, I felt that Donne showed God as a more sympathetic and caring creature. Donne didn’t make God appear so evil. They are similar in the fact that they both write about religion and each of their sonnets addresses God in one way or another. In conclusion, I believe that Jarman is a formalist with his own style. I think by making his sonnets more realistic and relatable to everyday life, he is able to connect better with his readers. Overall, I enjoyed the Unholy Sonnets very much, a lot better than Donne’s Holy Sonnets.
Mark Jarman and John Donne seem to write in similar manners regarding both the topic of their sonnets and their tendency to deviate from standard “sonnet” form. In the “Holy Sonnet” and the “Unholy Sonnets,” both writers appear to be contemplating the role of God in their life and are trying to discover how they can become better individuals from a religious standpoint. In these poems, both writers complement the sonnet form of poetry with their own individual tweaks on the style. In order to examine these comparisons further, I chose to focus on Jarman’s “Unholy Sonnet” #14.
ReplyDeleteIn “Unholy Sonnet” #14, Jarman appears to be examining how sin manifests in humans, even those who are continuously forgiven of their evil deeds at mass. Jarman suggests that no matter what we do, no matter how well we go through the motions of mass, sin is still “in [our] heart.” He portrays this message using a standard abba/abba rhyme scheme for the first eight lines, though, in the last six lines, he deviates from other sonnets that I have read by using a cdecde rhyme scheme. Although this rhyming pattern was not discussed on the previous blog, I feel that it most likely is a popular rhyme scheme to use in standard sonnets. Thus, I believe that Jarman is doing justice to the title as a “formalist” in his writing of this particular sonnet when following his rhyme scheme pattern. Also, his sonnet is 14 lines long, which is standard for a sonnet.
As for the lyrical aspect of Jarman’s sonnet, I feel as though Jarman deviates from standard iambic pentameter according to how I think of the form. However, I am not comfortable with my own ability to state this observation as fact due to my lack of work with iambic pentameter. From what we read about the form, I feel that the poems are supposed to have ten “beats”/syllables per line. This may not be true, however. What I do know is that in Jarman’s sonnet, the first eight lines all have eleven syllables while the last six lines all have ten. Is that conforming to iambic pentameter? What are the rules? Good question to discuss in class, because I really am not sure.
In comparison to John Donne’s “Holy Sonnets,” I believe that Jarman’s Sonnet XIV has much in common with Donne’s Sonnet 10 (XIV) (the sonnet that we rewrote in class). To me, Donne was trying to ask God to help him to be less of a sinner even though he admits that he will never be truly relieved of sin. Donne and Jarman share this belief and admit to their beliefs that humans can never stop sinning which they portray in the two sonnets mentioned. While the theme of their sonnets seem similar, Jarman has more modern word choices than Donne which makes his writing a bit easier to follow. Also, Donne is speaking to God in his poem while Jarman does not appear to be speaking to anyone in particular. This makes the tone of the two writers’ poems differ with Donne’s being a bit harsher sounding and Jarman’s coming across as more of an innocent quandary. This perception of tone seems to be stemming from the combination of the word choice and choice of audience in the poems.
Jarman’s sonnets definitely resemble standard sonnet form. I believe he deserves the title of a “formalist,” for bringing back the sonnet style in a time were free-verse was taking over. I admire Jarman and Donne for being able to put their own personal touch on a very strict form of poetry, and I believe that they both have shown that writing a poem in sonnet form does not have to take away (and may increase) the power of the words of which the poems are made.
Reading through Jarman’s poems, I felt that sonnet #11 was not necessarily different from all the other poems, but it did bring somewhat of an unexpected twist. This sonnet starts out very happy and joyful and it remains that way until the very last word, where it takes the unexpected twist. At the beginning of the sonnet, the person who is involved in it talks about how they are lying there half asleep in prayer and then all of the sudden feels this rush of joy and happiness fills their body and their room. This person had such a rush of joy and was so ecstatic, that even in the dark, somewhat dreary room they were in, they could not tell the difference from their body and the room.
ReplyDeleteThis person was now wide awake, feeling good, and so alert that they thought they were hearing things. Instead of the terror that is talked about, what this person usually feels, the joy has completely overwhelmed this person’s body. This person had been thankful for some reason or another, and from the feelings that they got back, it seems as though this person is usually not thankful or grateful for too many things.
Further on in the sonnet, the person cannot remember how or why a thanks was given, and they have tried all hours of the day and night to try and remember what they were thankful for. Then, the final line states “Once was enough to be dissatisfied.” So, obviously this person was giving thanks for the first time, they felt great like never before, and even with all the joy and emotion this person did not like the feeling they got when they gave thanks. This unexpected twist really caught my attention and made me think that maybe this person just did not like being happy and there was something deep down inside that hindered their ability to be thankful. It seems as if there is an underlying reason as to why this man cannot be happy and the noises that this person heard could have been the bad things in life trying to make their way back into the room and override this persons feeling of joy.
I definitely think that Jarman’s poem is a sonnet because it follows a rhyme scheme and iambic pentameter. I think that a poem not only needs this to make it a sonnet but it also needs to make the reader dig deep inside themselves to try and find the true meaning of the poem. The iambic pentameter creates a poem that is easy flowing and allows the reader to sink everything in. I feel that Jarman’s poem are indeed sonnets because they flow perfectly and allow the words and meanings to fly off the tip of ones tongue and they also allow the reader to decide what the true meaning of the work is. I think in order to not be a sonnet, the iambic pentameter and rhyme scheme would not be present and the work would just blatantly state what the writer meant instead of making the reader decide for themselves. Also, there would be no questioning in the readers mind about what the poem meant and, in a way it would not have the true and deeper meaning that a sonnet provides.
Jarman’s poetry is similar to Donne’s in that God is embedded into many of his sonnets and the questioning of God’s presence and true meaning are a common theme. I feel that Jarman’s poetry differs from Donne’s because Jarman’s poetry does not seem as miserable and it does not give the reader that feeling that the person writing the poem was very sad and distraught. Jarman’s work seems to instead try and re-establish the past and connect it to the present. I feel that Jarman does not want the history of the past to be forgotten and his work with the Unholy Sonnets seems to somewhat comfort his possible unwanted thoughts of religion.
After reading through Jarman’s Unholy Sonnets, the one that interested and challenged me the most was Unholy Sonnet 20. The beginning of the poem is a question that can draw attention from many of people so I think that is a very solid start to the Sonnet. The question being, If God survives us, will his kingdom come? Many philosophers as well as theologians could be put to the test with this question. But as I read it over and over again and being the believer that I am, if God does survive us, meaning there is no death, we really do not receive his Kingdom. Another interpretation I came up with is, if God survives us, are we really alive or are we already in his Kingdom? Thus there is no need for his Kingdom to come? I think that the very first line of this poem could create an issue worth discussing and can force many to think critically of what is being said.
ReplyDeleteThe next three lines of the Sonnet create an image that one can have different interpretations of. The lines being the following; “But, let’s row out to sea and ship the oars, And watch the planet drown in meteors. If god forgives us, surely he will come.” I feel that these three lines are simply talking of sin. Sin is so universal these days so by rowing out to sea and watching the planet drown in meteors seems as if watch sin and the destruction it brings upon mankind. But if God forgives us, the meteors won’t necessarily stop, but the presence of God will protect us from its destruction, also referring to God’s presence with us protecting us from sin.
The problem addressed in this Unholy Sonnet is made known in lines 5-8. The poet asks if the nailing of a child is the same as nailing a man to a cross and he answers yes. Then he says, “But let’s row out to sea and watch the stars. No Matter what we do, they are the same.” The problem addressed in these lines is that no matter the extent of the sin we commit it is still the same. And in line 8, it is addressed more clearly, no matter what sin we commit, a sin is a sin, there is no big or small characteristic to sin. A sin is a sin.
The solution or proposed solution to the problem addressed in lines 5-8 is that God will come to us. Lines 9 & 10 say, “Crossing the bleeding sky on shining feet, Walking on water toward us, and then sinking” meaning that God will come to us although we have sinned and caused God’s heart to bleed. And with his coming we will greet him with loving arms because he is a figure that which we have looked up to. Compared to John Donne’s poetry I feel that the Jarman poems were definitely a challenge to read but not as hard as Donne’s. Also the moods of the poems were not as depressing or downgrading as Donne’s. But a more obvious similarity is that both poets incorporate religion into their poems.
The poem I chose to write about after reading them all is number 11 in the Unholy Sonnets. It was really hard to choose which one to write about because many of them I didn’t have a good connection with them. I chose number 11 because of the imagery in the poem. It starts off by saying that they are half asleep in a room, which is pretty simple to get. Then, it seems as if they are comparing the room to their body when they say “I couldn’t tell my body from the room.” The one twist in this poem was in line 6, when they describe how they are wide awake, but in the beginning they are half asleep. That just seemed to contradict it, but then again, I could see how that would make sense if they receive this feeling of not being able to distinguish your own body from your room. Then, in the poem there is some kind of noise that would have frightened anyone else. A drawer being pulled open and the sound of doorknob twisting would scare anyone if it was in the middle of the night. This person felt “overwhelming joy” come over them during this time. Then they tried to remember why they had the response they did, and it seems as if they had a difficult time doing this. They only knew that they had so “thanks,” but had no idea why. It seems as if they are truly bothered by the fact that they cannot remember why they said this, and they describe this feeling as being dissatisfying. Overall, this poem was very easy for me to actually see as I read it. In some cases, there were times where I really didn’t understand exactly the reasoning for some of the feelings that they were being felt.
ReplyDeleteJarman’s poem that I read would not be considered a sonnet because there is no rhyme scheme of abba and cddc. There also is no octet, Volta, and sestet in this poem either. It differs from Donne’s poetry because this is not written in old English, and it just seems to have a smoother flow while reading it. I feel as though Jarman’s poetry is a lot more personal too. It is easier to relate to, in a way that you can just picture what is going on in the poem. The concept is easier to get, and the language in itself is easier to read. They are similar in that they both talk about God in their poems. God seems to be an important part in their lives and I like how they convey that through their poems. I do also believe that he is still a formalist. All of his poems relate back to God in some way, and in some of them they seem to relate straight back to the biblical text, but yet, still have that contemporary feeling about it. His poems were just a lot easier to read and more enjoyable since I could understand them better.
I decided to write about the second question. I never really noticed poem length and how much I liked or disliked a longer or shorter one until I made my way completely through Jarman’s poems in the packet. Up until the last poem, I actually did not even notice the lengths. Yes, I knew that sonnets had twelve lines, but length never stood out.
ReplyDeleteThe two poems that I am going to use to compare the lengths are the unholy sonnet number twelve and a longer one named the Drought Rain. The reason Unholy Sonnet number twelve appealed to me so much was because it was short and sweet. It was not overly complicated to where every word is debatable on its meaning. Sometimes, shorter poems are too short to where you feel as if you are not informed of the whole story too. This sonnet has dodged both of these things I hate. It tells a funny story because of the irony that is taking place and the storyline could not be simpler to follow. I guess this poem could be longer if it really wanted to be. However, I do not think the poem would at all benefit from a longer version. A longer poem would just add more detail which would not be necessary at all. It would also run the risk of being too drawn out. Shorter poems also leave more up to the interpretation to the reader. This can be a good or bad thing. In this sonnet’s case, I like how the whole story is plainly laid out. I do not need to use my imagination to fill in any blanks. I feel that any more detail in this poem would draw it out and make the ending not so abrupt and take away the humor.
The poem the Drought Rain, in my opinion, even though it is a longer poem compared to the sonnets, would not have benefitted by being a shorter work. I usually do not like long poems that are made to be a complete detailed story but this one works. All of the lines were interesting to read, and I did not feel as if it dragged on. Even though I think part of the poem got cut off because of how it ends with a comma, I liked how there was enough detail to see the transition in the poem from positive to negative. It is entitled Drought Rain, so obviously there is a drought. It is a happy mood because the rain is falling after a drought, and the rain is needed so badly. The poem then shifts to where everything is starting to be flooded because of too much rain. If this poem was shorter, this shift would not have been so complete, in my opinion.
Both of these poems about rain tell a story in their own way. One needs the length, while the other is better off short and simple. It really all depends on the type of story that you want to tell.
My initial reaction to Mark Jarman’s poems was confused and frustrated (similar to my reaction to Donne). However, what is different about reading Jarman is that he uses using much more contemporary language and images in comparison to Donne writing in the early 17th century. Through reading Jarman’s Unholy Sonnets, it is obvious that he chooses not to stick to the defined form of a “sonnet.” A sonnet, by definition, having 14 lines; the first eight lines presenting a problem, and the next six lines creating some sort of solution, and also including a volta – movement or change in tone – around line 9. In most of Donne’s Holy Sonnets, he follows this format quite strictly. Jarman, on the other hand, strays from this form granting him the title of a “new formalist.”
ReplyDeleteI would like to focus on Unholy Sonnet #13 and present my belief that this is indeed a sonnet. I’m usually all about following rules which Jarman doesn’t often do in his writing of a sonnet and makes it difficult to find a pattern, in this poem, the rhyme scheme and rhythm is quite present. The rhymes he uses are not necessarily direct sound rhymes, but concept rhymes. For example, Jarman rhymes bread with breed, stars with stirs, and time with wine. Donne would not use this sort of rhyming in his poetry though; he kept on with the abba, abba rhyme scheme. I also feel that Jarman’s language was much more straightforward and simple. I struggled with identifying the actual problem he presented in some sonnets (if any at all), but they were much easier to read because I didn’t get caught up in the Elizabethan text in which Donne wrote. Unholy Sonnet #13 is a beautiful image of intoxication because he is not only referring to the intoxicating effects of the wine he mentions in the poem, but also the emotional intoxication that can result from such an experience. He writes, “Drunk on the Umbrian hills…drunk on the pink cloud…drunk on the moon, a marble smile, and drunk…on one another.” Then, this question, “Who needed God?” The conflict of enjoying these earthly things, indulging in these desires is apparent. He mentions the “Godless perfect darkness breed enormous softly burning stars,” which is somewhat ironic because the stars are said to be one of God’s first creations. I love the sound of this line – a stream of sounds and words describing the stars. The use of the “b” sound in “we had our bodies, bread and glasses of raw, green, local wine…” is also creative and pleasing to the ear. The volta seems to occur in line 10, “Who needed God? And why do I ask now?” because Jarman goes on to talk about the details of his memories that bring him back, and that God was not necessarily present at that time. Again, the rhythm and rhyme differs a great deal from Donne and seems to stray from the form of a sonnet, however, it’s interesting to consider when a sonnet is no longer a sonnet.
When is a sonnet no longer a sonnet? When it becomes some other poem form? In the exercise we did in writing our own sonnets, I discovered that having a form to work with created difficulties, but also new opportunities. I do believe that if what was meant to be a “sonnet” ends up not following the rules exactly, it can still be considered a sonnet. It’s a rite of passage for the writer, but the motivation still came in the form of a sonnet.
The sonnet that I will be talking about is sonnet nineteen for prompt one. I would say that Jarman’s poems are sonnets but they are a little different than what I am used to seeing in sonnets. The reason I say this is because in my poem it does not even rhyme every other line and there is not even slant rhymes. This is what confused me about a few of his sonnets. Jarman’s poetry differs from Donne’s poetry by in Jarman’s poetry there is really not that many rhymes or slant rhymes and in Donne’s there is a lot of rhymes and slant rhymes. Also another way they differ is by how in Donne’s his poetry seemed more sad and depressing. He also talked about God a lot in his poetry and Jarmen didn’t talk about God as much in his poems. Also there righting styles are different. A few similarities that they had was that both there poetry had a a lot of emotion and drawing the reader in. To me a sonnet is no longer a sonnet when it does not have at least slant rhyme and also when it does not show emotion in the poem so the reader can understand what he or she is talking about.
ReplyDeleteIn this poem it drew me in right off the bat in the first line when it said “I swat him in the face and hope that nothing comes of it”. I think this line was great to start a poem off with because it draws the reader in so much. After the first line I think she feels bad that she hit him because later that night she says that she is lying in an oblong of insomnia. This means to me that she feels bad about what she did and she can not get it out of her mind. The next line she ask forgiveness because I think she is ashamed for what she did. The next line is the lines that confused me the most out of the whole poem. The line is “ I hope that nothing will arouse him further”. When she says this it makes me think that something is wrong because he is getting aroused by her and she had to hit him. So it makes me think that something is wrong with this picture. The next couple of line make me think that something really is wrong because she say’s that this is there fifteen year old boy with mans fist that come at her like bulletins and headlines. I interpreted this as since headlines and bulletins are bold then he must be coming at her really aggressively. Then the next line he says she can not sleep, so this means that she is scared of him because she can not sleep because he might do something to her while she is sleeping. Toward the end of the poem to me she starts feel lost like she doesn’t know what to do any more.
I had difficulty choosing between many of the sonnets (sonnets 11 and 12 in particular) however I ended up deciding upon sonnet 11. It is a subtly brutal sonnet and this is why I think I was drawn to it. It seems as though through this poem Mark Jarman is discrediting God with an emotion and not with reasoning. I found this particularly interesting. I believe he is saying that you can only find God when your half between awareness and unconsciousness. Even then it is fleeting and you must be acting and praying in just the right way for it to come. God is even so cruel as to only allow his discovery to those unable to remember how they got to him and those without true understanding of what they’ve come upon. This joy is so forceful that it over takes the person in an uncomforting way, though without it they are left even more without. The main characters dissatisfaction is in only experiencing the joy once and for only tasting it for so long. The joy is damaged in that it is not full and not fully known. It is enough to entice the senses and hook the individual which it graces, but it cannot be described as full.
ReplyDeleteI still believe that pretty much all of the Unholy Sonnets can still be considered sonnets. I think if you can recognize some sonnet-esque qualities in a poem, and the formal approach has been sacrificed for the sake of the outcome of the poem it can still be considered a sonnet. I think that Jarman accomplishes this within his sonnets. Sometimes he sacrifices the rhyme scheme or rhymes words that would not normally be rhymed to make the poem fuller of emotion. While Jarman holds a somewhat loose handle on the petrarchan sonnet, Donne is very strict in his poetry. Donne is able to be both creative and stringent which is a very hard thing to do. Jarman and Donne differ in their approaches. Obviously Jarman writes in a more modern voice, as he is a more modern author, and because of this he can make fairly bold statements without any serious thoughts about the repercussions. Donne is older language but all of his questions are based in the existence of God, while many of Jarman’s discount the idea of God altogether. The poets are similar in their questioning attitudes. They are confused and somewhat angry, or at least it seems so within the poetry, and they are trying to find understanding and meaning. I do believe that Jarman can still be considered a formalist though I do not believe his a model formalist. He is bringing back a petrarchan sonnet. Modern sonnets seem to mostly be influenced by Shakespearean sonnets. He does not follow the rhyme scheme exactly but I believe he is still within the realm of the sonnet. I think a sonnet is no longer a sonnet when it is not fairly quickly and obviously recognized as a sonnet after the first reading or the first look.
Prompt #1
ReplyDeleteThe Unholy Sonnet I chose to look at is number five. It is a very interesting sonnet which I think discusses the question of our lives as human beings and the possible afterlife of our souls. I get a feeling in the first eight lines, or octet, that Jarman is frantically looking for an answer to his question: do we just live for the here and now, or is life a preparation for death and possibly heaven? The octet has a negative feel to it, with words like rotten, stung and swollen. Throughout the sonnet is an extended metaphor of bees and a hive. In the first line Jarman is saying the only thing we can do is live in the present. The second line is a definite contrast to that, asking how can that be all there is to life. The octet ends with the image of “stung and swollen in the hive.” I think the hive is representing the physical body, and the line refers to this questioning of life stinging the person because they are unsure.
But the turn in the ninth line has a very different connotation to it. It immediately lightens the sonnet with words like joy and loving. It continues with the hive metaphor, going on to say “death will smoke us out like bees.” I really like the line of our souls keeping like honey after we die. The honey is staying with the bee metaphor, and it is also an interesting choice of words because honey lasts virtually forever and is always sweet. This sonnet is one of his more uplifting ones because it ends on a good note having faith in a joyful afterlife. It also ends resolved, where I noticed some of his other ones did not have that closed feeling.
I consider this poem a sonnet. It has fourteen lines, a rhyme scheme, a volta, and is written in iambic pentameter. The rhyme scheme in the first eight lines is normal with abba abba. The rhyme scheme in the sestet is different than standard cddcdd or cdcdcd. It is almost like abc abc, except the words do not rhyme but he repeats the same word at the end of the line. It was done on purpose, and I think he first had the words rhyme in a standard scheme but changed them.
Jarman’s writing differs from Donne’s most obviously in the language he uses. It is more modern and easier to understand. I also got the feeling that Donne’s sonnets are usually harsher in his questioning of God than Jarman. They are often similar with the content of their sonnets. Both Jarman and Donne are questioning God, an afterlife, and how they feel toward religion. Donne’s Holy Sonnets are strictly and very obviously revolved around God, whereas Jarman’s sonnets are sometimes only loosely tied into religion.
Jarman is still a formalist because the definition of a formalist is a poet who takes traditional forms and gives them a more modern spin. He definitely uses most of the traditional sonnet form. The only thing I noticed different was the rhyme scheme of the sestet. A sonnet is no longer a sonnet to me when a poet is not writing it for the intention to be a sonnet. If a formalist writes a poem in sonnet form and then changes it to fit his purpose of the poem better, it is still a sonnet.
Prompt #1
ReplyDeleteI looked at the second sonnet on page 52. I really enjoyed how he used the image of the hand constructed into a church and steeple with tiny finger people inside. I remember making this with my hands when I was little, so it was easy for me to imagine what he was talking about. The way he describes this image is well thought through so even if someone had never made this shape with their hands, by following his description they could easily figure out what he was talking about. However, my favorite part of this sonnet is the last five lines. He describes how the fingers are joined together and they don’t know it. Then he continues to write about how supposedly because they are stuck and want their freedom they confess hoping they will be let go and their greatest fear was not confessing, but being locked together. I thought this was interesting because it seems that he is no longer just talking about fingers. Although the sonnet started off talking about this unity between fingers and hands, as the poem progresses it appears as though he is more specifically talking about the connection between God and man. I think this poem is sort of making a mockery of the idea of confession and how easy it is for people to be relieved from their sins. Just like the “fingers” were able to confess and be let free from the grip of the other hand. This could relate to the idea that people might confess to sins only because they are afraid God is watching and they will be punished not because they actually think they did something wrong. In other words, it is not their sins that bother them, but the fact they are locked up.
I also think that yes this poem is a sonnet. It follows the fourteen line theme and it has a rhyme scheme that is easy to follow. It also follows iambic pentameter. For a sonnet not to be a sonnet I think it wouldn’t have a rhyme scheme and wouldn’t follow iambic pentameter. I think the most important part of the sonnet is the iambic pentameter. I find most sonnets to be almost song like and with out that quality it loses some of its strength. Without the “sonnet rhyme scheme” it also is no loner a sonnet, but a regular poem.
It is similar to Donne’s poem because they both have to do with God and often propose a question that seems directed towards God. It often feels like he is being very critical of God, as though the idea of God is ironic. The speaker often sounds sarcastic and has almost an angry mocking quality to his tone. These poems also sound sort of sadistic and are not very uplifting to read. On the other hand, I felt that Donne showed God as a more sympathetic and understanding. Donne didn’t make God appear so evil. Although I don think Donne was also sometimes critical of God. Therefore, they are similar in the fact that they both write about religion and both sonnets addresses God in one way or another. Overall, I liked Jarman’s sonnet better because it was easier to understand and felt more to relate to.
I choose to analyze Mark Jarman’s sonnet number 19 from his ‘Unholy Sonnets.’ I believe this excerpt to be a sonnet insofar as it follows the unyielding form of the age-old sonnet in terms of length. Though it does not follow the orthodoxy of a consistent rhyme scheme, the poem serves as an experiment of sorts in unconventional stream of consciousness.
ReplyDeleteIt would appear that Jarman is reliving an evening in which he doubted the undying “love” of the Lord. When he says that the “vast is vulnerable,” it would seem that he is questioning the almighty power of God. Just as the fundamental Christian doubts the grace of God, so does Jarman when he alludes to the idea that God is not all-forgiving.
It would be entirely too difficult to compare John Donne’s poetry to that of Mark Jarman’s as the two were writing in two different eras of time. Though many contemporary critical theorists would argue that their analytical doctrines last the lengths of history, I would refute that claim by supporting the notion of experimentation. Donne’s sonnets generally follow the strict guidelines of the Petrarchan form, while Jarman’s (namely #19) seek to reform these procedures. In a period of time when a poet is simply an experimenter in plagiarism I would think that the reader should embrace Jarman’s sonnet structure as a poetic change of pace. What the poetry world needs is an alteration of configuration. Too often do I pick up what critics call a “new and original author’s” sonnets and it seems I’ve read the same poem twice-over, or ten-fold for that matter. By no means do I claim to be an authority on such a subject, though I will admit that it comes as a refreshing treat when a poet builds on a traditional poetic structure.
If not for such poetic reformists as Mark Jarman, amongst many, the poet would be stuck in the middle of a solipsistic haze. Imagine driving with the same perpetual song playing on the CD player—I can envisage no such melody that would serve as continuous and enjoyable stimulation to my temporal lobe. Similarly, I cannot think of any poem off the top of my head that would suffice for the only poem I could read for the entirety of the rest of my lifetime.
As far as the Sonnet goes, I think it would be dubious of me to presume that I could defend any such “form” or “structure” as definitive in terms of correctness. The Sonnet is what you make of it—what serves to please the writer and his or her poetic disposition. Just as many would say that poetry is what you choose to call it, so do I believe that the sonnet is what YOU, the writer, deem to be a sonnet. If Mark Jarman can defend his work as Sonnet form, then by someone’s God, it’s a sonnet.
Too often do poets assert that their take on The Poem is the bottom line—let us call a spade a spade and encourage the renovation of poetic form. I look at traditional poetry the same way as I look at Catholicism—outdated!
Mark Jarman and John Donne have very similar writing styles concerning their sonnets. Donne’s “Holy Sonnets” and Jarman’s “Unholy Sonnets,” seem to address the same idea, which is the questioning of the role of God in their lives. Even though Jarman’s sonnets are called “Unholy,” I believe that there is some aspect of questioning to his faith and I can see that he might be a believer. I am choosing to discuss Jarman’s Unholy Sonnet number 4. This sonnet really jumped out at me because of the language and the message. First off, Jarman’s rhyming of “be” and “nonentity” is remarkable. That is such a great way to rhyme the ends of the phrases, but still get the point across that he wanted to. I thoroughly enjoyed that rhyme. Also, from this sonnet, I can see that Jarman knows that God is omnipresent, all-loving, and all-knowing, and I love the phrases that he uses to express his realizations (or questions concerning God). Specifically, his phrases such as “loving emptiness,” “the love shows/Itself in absence,” and back to “nonentity,” really show the emptiness and vastness of the universe created by God, and how his love is present over everything, even though it is all vast. From this sonnet I gather from Jarman’s language, that he knows this, and that he is stating this. The use of “energy,” “explodes,” and “stars,” all seem to connect for me. They are in all ways dealing with energy, and the explosive energy that the stars contain is the little bits of love in the universe of nothingness. God’s love however, is a larger energy source and fills the entire universe. I think that Jarman is trying to say that God’s loving light expands all of the nothingness of the universe more than the stars do. This loving light that God provides is Jesus who is the way, the truth, and the light and we are the stars in the universe that adore seeing this light come out of nothingness. This is my interpretation of this sonnet, but I have to reexamine this because the sonnets’ titles are “Unholy.” I do not fully know what Jarman is trying to accomplish with these sonnets. However, I do believe that this is a sonnet, because it has the fourteen specified lines, is in iambic pentameter, a typical rhyme scheme, and a Volta. For myself, who knows little about sonnets, all of these characteristics produce the definition of a sonnet to me. The language of this sonnet is definitely easier to understand, because it was written at a significantly later time, but other than that there seem to be very few differences between Jarman and Donne’s writing. For me, even with Jarman’s liberties, this is still a sonnet by definition. For me, when I have always thought of sonnets, I think of Shakespearean love poetry, and Jarman’s sonnet does not satisfy my definition then, however, his following of the rules of writing is well done, and I enjoy his sonnets very much. This poem really proclaims how truly “Amazing” it is to believe in the love that God provides fulfilling all of the nothingness of the universe.
ReplyDeleteI thought a lot of the Mark Jarman’s writing was showing a doubt in religion. I felt like he knew about the bible and had a good understanding of it but wants more from it. I think that he thought he deserved more than what God had given to him in some ways. In the eighth sonnet he talked about to forces ruling the universe, and the God that is talked about in the bible was not one that was mentioned. However he does use “gravity” and “light” which could possibly be a hint to him have some faith toward God. I think that he could be using “gravity” because it is something that can be grasped by the human mind. Also “light” because everyone knows what it is. I think that he picked to good worlds because these are used in the universe in a way that without it we would not be able to survive. I think the third and fourth lines bring up a good point because they in some ways are the opposites death is in a way the opposite of light because after you die you have nothing. At the same time gravity is everywhere so in a world, with which is why nothingness is a great opposite to it. I think Jarman struggles with the idea of God in this sonnet because he describes staying awake at night try to comprehend how the “light” and “gravity” are able to exist. I think that he believes that death is easier to grasp for him because the next sentences talks about how death also rules the universe. I think most powerful line in the sonnet is “and if it matters, after your last breath.” I think that he is trying to say that without one you can not have the other. It explains how the opposites are needed to have one for the other. The last line is confusing to me because I don’t know if he is trying to understand God or trying to make a deeper comparison with “breath”.
ReplyDeleteI have a hard time deciding if this is a sonnet because it’s hard to find where the octet and sestet differ. Also the volta isn’t really a twist or turn from the rest of what he is talking about. However there are other rules that follow a sonnet; it does rhyme, and it has fourteen lines. I think it is a sonnet, but it’s hard for me to say for sure.
I think that Jarman’s sonnets are a lot easier to read, but they still have a good underline means, much like Donne’s. It’s hard to compare because they were writing and different times and were different types of writers, Jarman being a formalist and Donne being a Meta physical poet.
I think that Jarman is a formalist because he talks about God and Religion, but does not say whether or not he believes in it or not. I think that is onw of the reasons he wrote the unholy sonnets because he has an understanding of religion, but is struggling with understanding or find what he really wants to find in it.
I chose to discuss Jarman's sonnet number 9 in depth. This is a very spritual sonnet/poem. I think that Jarman is a strng poet in that he can use extended vocabulary, but still can optain a sense of understanding. I believe that the first 3 lines of the poem are unique in the same sense that the last three lines are also. The first three lines talk about how God is in total control of our mind, body, and soul. I love the extra wordage in lines 2 and 3, it makes the imagery that more surreal and unbelievable. The fourth line, "Inside the skull inside the trick of flesh" is a serious line. To me it is saying that inside our minds and inside the thing in which we call our brain. I have absolutely no idea that is the best i can come up with to that line in articular. Lines 5-8 I feel are describing the scene of a church. The face like a picture window is a stain glass window like they have in alot of churches. The body a door of molded glass seems like maybe that is describing how the stain glassed windows are being created. i think the first 8 lines describe a clothing scene. What I mean by that is I feel that he gives us the great side of how we express our love towards the Lord. Now the last 6 lines after the volta I feel naked in a sense. It starts out saying, "And every wrinkle folded in the brain," that makes me feel so unclothed. It is almost as if Jarman brings out are worst fears or hidden secrets and lets us know that you can keep no secrets from God. I like the way he says, " you touch the working parts and track the thought," that is letting us know that we can hide nothing from God. I think his sonnets differ from Donne because he doesn't use as vulgar language to get our attention. Donne's sonnets seem to be more aimed towards showing God's weaknesses more than his strengths. I love Donne's realness but attacking God I am not a fan of at all. So I love Jarman's approach to his sonnets.
ReplyDeleteThese are sonnets definitely in my mind. They have 14 lines, they have great volta's and they have the great rhyme scheme. I think his volta's are opposite in that he tells the solutions first and the problem second which I happen to love alot better. It gives the reader a quick sense of what is portruding. I love his sense of going against the natural volta turn. He reminds me of myself when I write poetry. I love to follow guidelines but I hate following them exactly and doing exactly what everyone else does. Originality is my number one greatest thing I appreciate and I think that Jarman also follows this contradiction.
I chose to do Jarman’s sonnet 12. I chose to do this sonnet because it attracted my attention, and was the only sonnet that I understood the most. The rest of the sonnets, I thought to be more complicated and complex to the point that I did not understand it, and could not get the point of it. In sonnet 12 Jarman tells the story of Job, of how he was blessed with crops and cattle; all that he had wished. Until one day, Job was shocked to find that all he had worked for and loved was destroyed, he then cursed God.
ReplyDeleteWithin the first line Jarman calls Job a “pious” man, which means a person with a doubtful spirit in God. He then goes on in the second and third line to call him a “more pious and upright, who prayed The way most people thoughtlessly enjoy Their stream consciousness.” I loved when Jarman calls Job upright, and then says that he prays thoughtlessly. In my opinion it seems that he is contradicting Job’s character. How can one be upright and then pray thoughtlessly? It also makes me think of how people today pray unto God just to do it because they feel they have to and not because they want to do. While doing that, they do not praise God of the many gifts that he has bestowed on them, but yet they just see it as, “God has to bless me because he is God.” I think that is not true. God does not have to give anyone anything. And that probably let Job to his downfall, as can be seen in line four through six.
“So he was shocked, returning from the bank, to see a flood bearing his farm away- His cows, his kids, his wife, and all his stuff.” Job was shocked that God would “Betray” him because he thought just praying was enough. So he then goes to say, “Why?” At that moment Job questions God as to why he would do him wrong in that matter to take away all that he loves. “Naked I shall come in the world, and naked I shall leave” God did not do that punish Job, he just wanted him to see that without God he would not had all the material things he had. But Jarman in the last line, reworded the text into modern language and said, “And God grumped from his rain cloud., “I can’t say. Just something about you pissess me off.” I think Jarman is mocking God saying that he does stuff for no reason so he just randomly chose Job. I do think that his sonnets differ than Donne’s. Donne was confessing to God, being more religious hoping that God will forgive him and here within Jarman’s sonnet it seems like he is mocking God. They do have some similarity being that they are both religious in some way. Lastly, yes I do believe that Jarman takes such liberties.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrompt # 1
ReplyDeleteWhile reading all of Jarman’s poems and sonnets, I was very disappointed. There were many poems and sonnets I did not understand. In some poems it felt to me like Jarman was making a mockery of Holy Sonnets. I don’t know if I truly understand what Jarman meant by this sonnet, or what he was trying to get across. In sonnet 12 Jarman gets inspiration from a scripture in Job from the Bible. Prior to reading this sonnet I never read the scripture. What Jarman wrote does not fulfill the “said” criteria of a sonnet. There is no rhyme scheme or an Iambic Pentameter as I read it. I found some of the words in this poem interesting. Words such as: bearing instead of using the word taking, swept instead of knocked, etc. I found myself to be really mad after reading this sonnet.
This sonnet totally caught me off guard. I thought it was going have a happy ending and my jaw literally dropped while reading the last line. “Just something about you pisses me off.” I found this to be disturbing. For a man to give all of himself to God and do right by him with all means, doing something like that does not seem right. God swept away all the man knew (wife, children, livestock, etc) and even took him. All the things he built, while praising God, just taken in an instant. I mean this man was devoted, he prayed, and gave his mind, body, and soul he to God. He thanked God for all his good fortune and probably put God before his family. I can see if he mistreated all that was given to him and did not thank God for anything, but he did all he could to be an upright individual and be in the good graces of God. While reading over the sonnet a couple times I thought of real life situations.
I thought about relationships, where you can give all of yourself to someone and put their wants and needs before your own, and they leave you high and dry and take everything from you. As I think more and more about this sonnet, maybe there is something missing to show what the man did for God to damn him and his family. Maybe I’ve missed something. Where I read: “… who prayed the way most people thoughtlessly enjoy their stream of consciousness.” Maybe this man was not really aware of his surroundings and thought some of the things he did were good and God thought they were not. He was not aware of the small things that he did on a daily basis that were not good in Gods’ eyes. He may have been blinded by something.
This sonnet definitely differs from Donne’s sonnets. I though sonnets were supposed to be about doubting or question in the first eight lines, then a solution in the last six lines. We already find that this poem does not have the form of a sonnet, but it also does not appear to show the question and answer form. But, as I kept reading I got the sense there was some questioning. There is something going on here that is not explicitly stated. There is something deeper to the sonnet, I think. Something the man has done that made God come to a solution of removing him from the picture. Jarman maintains the formalist way of writing. He makes a twist on the sonnets and still incorporates God into some of his poems.
I chose which piece to write about the same way I have chosen the other pieces in previous prompts, simply because it makes some connection with me either consciously or maybe even unconsciously. Jarman’s Unholy Sonnet 5 stuck with me even as I read through the other sonnets. I really couldn’t stop thinking about this one as I went through the rest of the packet. The first thing that I attached myself to was the repeated use of the bee theme. Throughout the poem, starting in line four and continuing in line 8, 11 and 13, Jarman uses metaphors dealing with bees to describe his ideas about our body and soul. It seems that in the first eight lines Jarman is obviously questioning something. He is expressing his feelings about this question and the answer that we give. I get the feeling that he is probably questioning the ideas of life after death, body and soul, and heaven and the afterlife. Jarman is question how we can make these bold statements and indoctrinate them into children without having a great or concrete explanation. He is frustrated with these questions not having answers and regardless of this fact, we still choose to believe and teach them. Also in lines four and five we get the feeling that he is angry about how and what we are telling children. Children are innocent and easily manipulated when it comes to religion, and Jarman cannot come to grips with the fact that we are preaching some of these things to children. It seems as though Jarman is having a big conflict with faith in general. The octet has a negative and frustrated tone, but this tone changes with the volta in line nine and continues throughout the sestet. He switches from language like rotten, stung and swollen to joy, loving and honey. In line thirteen Jarman comes out and states his beliefs on the afterlife. He says our souls will keep like honey after death, meaning that our souls will move on and be sweet after we die. He also says we will forget that we were going to forget we were going to see the end of joy. This was, at first, hard to decipher, but I think I have an idea. When death comes we will forget that life is ending because we are going to heaven. But, he then says we will forget this, so in a sense he is saying that we will not be happy in heaven because we will again remember that we have died and left the world and many things behind. I think this poem is a good example of a sonnet. It has fourteen lines, the octet followed by the volta then the sestet. The volta changes the tone of the piece, and the sestet answers and resolves the problem, doubt or situation brought up in the octet. It also follows the traditional rhyming scheme of abba, abba through the octet. Like other sonnets, the sestet is open for different schemes of rhyme, and Jarman does that. It is an untraditional rhyming scheme but nonetheless, I would not label it “not a sonnet” because of the rhyming scheme in the last six lines. I think the main difference between Jarman and Donne is simply the time period. This leads to their differences in language. I really think the modern language in Jarman is really the only difference between him and Donne. They both are questioning many of the same ideas involving religion and often make personal remarks toward God. I think Jarman is still a formalist because he follows the basic palette for a sonnet while making some personal changes without losing the core of what a sonnet is. For me a sonnet is not a sonnet when it does not follow the basic pattern of fourteen lines, an octet followed by a volta in the sestet.
ReplyDeleteJarman’s “Unholy Sonnets” Blog #4
ReplyDeleteAfter reading, analyzing, and researching Mark Jarman’s Neo-Formalism poetic style, I choose to explicate his “Unholy Sonnet 14." I felt that the overall format of his poem in terms of the Octet, Volta, and Sestet spoke to a very true Petrarchan style, even though he did not stick to a strict iambic pentameter meter in each line. However, he did maintain a common, true of Neo-Formalism, rhyme scheme with an ABBA, ABBA, CDE, CDE style. Also, he preserved the short, yet meaningful, nature of the fourteen line sonnet, which captures the reader by telling a story in so few lines. Even more beautiful or complex than free verse or the strict rules of Petrarchan fourteen line sonnets was the method in which he used the iambic style to sometimes correlate with the rhyme scheme or, as a direct result, to cause greater attention to fall on certain words. In this essence, Jarman’s poem is a more refined sonnet, not true to the Petrarchan style, but captures newer beauties of poetic literature (even deeper than the Neo-Formalism definition), while maintaining some ideals of the fundamental techniques. Jarman’s octet is an example of the way a person may purify the soul by attending church. The Volta turns the attention form a church service to a medically stale image of pain. The sestet works through the thought that purification cannot fix the soul. Although God forgives, the idea of sin remains in the soul until the sinner accepts true pain (not the immediate resort to forgiveness by praying at church). Lines seven and twelve, “swords” and “stabs” correlate with each as both words foreshadow some insight at the “persons” murderous sin. Compared to Donne’s poetry, another writer who “broke the rules,” both writers to do not adhere to the precise iambic pentameter in each line, yet knowingly, each deviates to place emphasis on certain words or phrases. Yet, Jarman’s “Unholy Sonnet 14” creates a stronger twist in the rhyme scheme through one particular accented word choice in line seven: “swords.” From this one change, the poem’s tone shifts drastically resulting in an uncommon direction for the turn. Possibly, since Donne’s poetry is not written in modern English, readers miss this aspect in his poetry.
Also, characteristic of both poems is the fourteen line plot form with Octet, Volta, and Sestet. Donne’s poetry addresses the problem or person the poem is intended for (God) more directly in the octet, even if the issue is in an extended metaphor form. Jarman’s poetry lacks an issue until the sestet when normally, in Petrarchan form, there is some type of resolution. Even Donne’s poetry clearly follows a plot format for his story where Jarman’s lingers until after the Volta. From this nature, Jarman strays from the traditional ways of the Neo-Formalism writing. Possibly, he uses this technique to make his poem more tense or suspenseful for the reader, since he is missing an exact person to address (in Donne’s piece this was God) . This may allow his poetry, although ambiguous, to mean more to its readers since his style incorporates a person known to them (like how Aaron mentioned he named his sonnet “Your Love”).
In terms of defining the meaning of the format in a sonnet, one must look at the both the length and meaning of the poem. Sonnets, in my opinion, should be shorter in nature to allow a quick story, yet not an overwhelming novel of a problem. On this note, a sonnet should incorporate some issue or problem that the speaker is facing with some type of resolution. Whether this resolution actually occurs is definitely open for interpretation. Another aspect of the sonnet form that gives this poem style flare is the rhyme scheme. From a musical standpoint, I believe that the rhythm in a poem generates as much emotion as the words the poet chooses. Alternating from the Petrarchan style is like alternating an eighth note pattern. This allows the author to add ornamentation and syncopation in the poem, which generates a stronger, unique, sonnet for the reader.
I can understand why Mark Jarman would title this particular collection of pieces Unholy Sonnets. They are, in fact, “holy” in the sense that they are religious based, however, the negative attitude towards God adds the “un” to the word. So, considering that both Jarman's Unholy Sonnets and John Dunne's Holy Sonnets are derived from Christian belief, there are some obvious similarities. Both men are struggling with faith throughout their poems. To believe or not to believe; that's what they're asking. It's apparent that Dunne has more faith than Jarman and this is best displayed in the first Unholy Sonnet.
ReplyDeleteThe first Unholy Sonnet is written in a way that comes off condescending towards God. The entire octet is a series of synonyms or metaphors describing Him. The opening lines, “Dear God, Our Heavenly Father, Gracious Lord / Mother Love and Maker, Light Divine” sound like a fairly normal way to start a religious poem, but then the epithets keep going. Jarman even goes as far as comparing God to the “First Letter of the Alphabet, Last Word / Mutual Satisfaction, Cash Award.” Around these lines is where I realized that Jarman was writing sarcastically.
Jarman continues to explain that he “can say almost anything about you (notice he does not capitalize the word you) / O Big Idea, and with each epithet / Create new reasons to believe or doubt you.” This statement is basically Jarman saying, “I can say whatever the hell I want about you; it doesn't make you any more or less real.” However, he knows that there is a line he should not cross; this is evident in the second to last line, “But what's the anything I must leave out?...” The “anything” is referring back to the first line of the sestet that states, “I can say almost anything about you.” From that line, I came to the conclusion that although Jarman does not entirely believe in God, he also does not doubt him completely.
The first Unholy Sonnet differs from most of Dunne's sonnets because Dunne has more fear of God than Jarman. As we discussed in class, Dunne is terribly afraid of judgement day. Most of his Holy Sonnets reflect this fear as he is confessing his sins and his doubt. I wrote about the Holy Sonnet VII, which displays Dunne's fright for the end of the world, but it also demonstrates his trust in God who can “teach [him] how to repent, for that's as good / As if thou hadst sealed [his] pardon with Thy blood.” Dunne believes that God has no boundaries and can hand him a golden ticket to heaven. This idea differs from Jarman's, who claims that God can “solve nothing but the problems that [he] set[s],” i.e. God's not that great. Dunne tries to cover up his true doubt in fear that he will not go to heaven, but Jarman seems to have accepted whatever may come of his belief.
Besides belief differences, Jarman and Dunne's sonnet styles are quite similar. Both men include the traditional octet and sestet, as well as a volta. Direct rhyme and slant rhyme are present in both the men's writing styles. In the first Unholy Sonnet, Jarman follows the usual ABBA, ABBA, style in the octet, and one of the common sestet styles, CDCDCD. The biggest difference I sense between the two sonnet styles is the use of iambic pentameter. Dunne's sonnets have a much more sound iambic pentameter; he hardly strays from the ten syllable lines. Jarman, on the other hand, does not follow the iambic pentameter exactly. For example, in the Unholy Sonnet I examined, the syllables in the lines range from 9-11 randomly.
I believe Jarman can stilled be considered a formalist even though he does not follow every single sonnet rule. Poetry allows for some bending and breaking, otherwise it wouldn't quite be poetry! Art should not be definitely constricted. I enjoy reading sonnets because it's interesting to see how the poem turns. Poets like Dunne and Jarman write sonnets so well it's as if it comes naturally to them. I have to say, I'm more fond of Jarman's Unholy Sonnets because I find them easier to comprehend and more relatable. Perhaps I would feel different had I been born some three hundred years ago.
For my examination of one of Mark Jarman’s Holy Sonnets, I chose Sonnet #11. This particular sonnet appealed to me because I could relate to Jarman’s description of the feeling he experienced. His metaphors have been consistently good; they make creative, new-age comparisons without sacrificing meaning—most of the times they enhance the meaning of the metaphor because of their relevance to the present. The metaphor that really hit home for me in this sonnet was the line “Alert as though I’d heard a doorknob twist”. Jarman then goes on to describe how that same alertness felt when you are terrified someone is breaking into your house was present in him after saying this prayer, only caused by joy and not terror. Another one of his sonnets—“The Word ‘Answer’”—compares God to snow, saying that Jarman is aware that none of his prayers will ever get answered directly, so he pretends snow is an answer to his prayers. The snow, in Jarman’s opinion, is a preferable form of God because it responds directly to feet and winds in the way that God doesn’t directly respond to prayers. He ends that sonnet beautifully with that same metaphor, saying that the answer to prayer is “As dangerous as it is beautiful”. This sonnet (#11) echoes the previous one in the fact that Jarman experienced an “overwhelming joy” at receiving an answer to his thanksgiving, and then a frustration at not being able to conjure up the same feeling. Therefore, a recurring theme in Jarman’s poems seems to be him searching for an answer to his prayers in whatever form possible. Now for the technicalities of the traditional Petrarchan sonnet, as they apply to Jarman’s Unholy Sonnets: Sonnet #11 did not have the traditional rhyme scheme of a Petrarchan sonnet, although many of his Unholy Sonnets kept some form of that rhyme scheme; the 11th sonnet didn’t rhyme at all until the last three lines to wrap up the poem: “I still cannot recall and I have tried…Once was enough to be dissatisfied”. The meter of this poem did not follow the traditional iambic pentameter that the Petrarchan sonnets did. For the most part each line had five feet; however, the stressed syllables were often unpredictable. Jarman was able to fit perfect iambic pentameter into some parts of the sonnet, for example: “I couldn’t tell my body from the room”. But in general, the poem focused more on its own rhythm instead of the traditional iambic pentameter. In my opinion, the poem worked better without the overuse of iambic pentameter. If Jarman had tried to squeeze his words into the poem based on a certain number of syllables, it would have sounded forced and the meaning wouldn’t have been as clear. The format of the sonnet (Octet, Volta, and Sestet) was quite different than the traditional sonnets. His Volta, “The intrusion of an overwhelming joy”, would have worked in the traditional sense if he had not ended the poem with an unexpected twist of dissatisfaction—which is usually the mark of a Volta, not a sestet. All in all, I believe that he tweaked the traditional form, while keeping the tradition intact.
ReplyDelete