What is a sonnet?

Earlier I wrote an entry on the important poem, the sonnet. But I also know that the sonnet is incredible versatile, almost as versatile as it is important, and further I think it's my task to tell you all a bit more about this almost mythical form of poetry, starting with its history.
But first, I'll list a couple of sources, as you might want to check them out.
The Norton Anthology, English Literature
The Norton Anthology, American Literature
Prof. J. S. Drangsholt of the University of Stavanger.
Prof. B. S. Rangnes of the University of Stavanger.

The sonnet comes from Italy. "Sonnet" is a version of the Italian word "sonnetto", meaning little song.
The father of the sonnet is said to be Francesco Petrarca (1304-1374).
He dealt with love, mostly with the unrequited love.
The Petrarchan (or Italian) sonnet consist of 14 lines (verses).
It's divided by an
Octave consisting of eight lines
Sestet consisting of six lines.
The Octave is mostly closed in its rhyme pattern, showing the abba abba.
The Sestet can vary in its rhyme pattern, for instance cdecde, cdccdc, cdedce etc (this is called inerlaced rhyme)

Now that the sky and the earth and the wind are silent
and the beasts and the birds are stilled by sleep,
night draws the starry chariot in its course
and in its bed the sea sleeps without waves.
I see, I think, I burn, I weep, and she who fills me with sorrow
is always before me in my sweet suffering,
I am in a state of war, full of pain and anger,
and only in thinking of her do I have any peace.

Thus only a clear and living fountain
can still the sweet bitterness on which I feed.
One hand alone can heal and pierce me
therefore my suffering can never be concluded.
A thousand times a day I die, and am reborn
so that I am always far from my salvation.

Ok, this is translated from Italian to English, and the rhyming at the end of each line has been lost in translation. But the original has an abba, abba, cde, cde pattern.
In poems like this they made use of imagery, and also of conflicting imagery. I want you look at the phrase "Sweet Suffering", and think for a second what that conveys. This is a phenomenon we refer to as an oxymoron. In an oxymoron you have two opposite elements placed together in order to explain a certain emotion or state of mind, or even scenery (when describing anything, really). If you're thinking about joining the literally world on a higher level, oxymoron is one of those terms that will come in handy... and if mentioned on an exam, well bring on that A...

Enter Shakespeare.
William Shakespeare (1564-1616)

In a Shakespearean sonnet other rules applies.
We get terminologies such as iambic pentameter, and the rhyming pattern changes drastically. Where the Petrarchan sonnet is divided in two, the Octave and the Sestet, the Shakespearean sonnet is divided in four, three quatrains and a couplet. The rhyming pattern in the quatrains would vary, almost like any stanza of any poem, and then the rhyming couplet would serve as the concluding lines in the end.

Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?
Thou art more lovely and more temperate:
Rough winds do shake the darling buds of May,
And summer's lease hath all too short a date:

Sometimes too hot the eye of heaven shines,
And often is his gold complexion dimm'd;
And every fair from fair sometime declines,
By chance, or nature's changing course, untrimm'd;

But thy eternal summer shall not fade,
Nor lose possession of that fair thou owest;
Nor shall Death brag thou wander'st in his shade,
When in eternal lines to time thou growest;

So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.

My favorite are the Shakespearean sonnets. They are more restricted, yes, but showing great poetry through restricted rules is much more challenging in my mind.
But I find it useful to know the different between the two. You might identify many sonnets now that you know, because in the entire literary history of the western world you will find the sonnet in many variations. And I'll give you a few more examples in entries to come, but one more here...
This is so extremely fascinating, I'm sure you all agree, and fascinating simply must be investigated further, so stay with me :-)=

One of the most important poems we went through in our British part of the course last semester was William Wordsworth's Lines (Composed a few miles above Tintern Abbey)
This is really no sonnet at all. It is a dramatic monologue, a technique Wordsworth developed with his good friend Coleridge.
Quickly, a dramatic monologue has a narrator (an "I", a speaker), one narrator. But, he has an audience, he's addressing someone who is present. Had the narrator been alone, speaking into the void it would have been a soliloquy. In Tintern Abbey, Wordsworth is speaking to his sister.
Now Tintern Abbey is a magnificent piece of literature, and so incredibly descriptive of the romantic period. I'm not going to go into the vastness that is Tintern Abbey, I think that will have to be an entry of its own. But I am going to claim something that not even my professor have said out loud... I'm pretty sure she thought it, because she's Oxford material, but out loud this idea is mine.
A few years down the line, you can all say you read it here first...
In Tintern Abbey one can find a climax to the story. My professor pointed us in the general direction. And here is my sentiment. The climax is a hidden sonnet.
...
For I have learned to look on nature, not as in the hour
Of thoughtless youth; but hearing oftentimes
The still, sad music of humanity,
Nor harsh nor grating, though of ample power
To chasten and subdue, And I have felt
A presence that disturbs me with the joy
Of elevated thoguhts: a sense sublime
Of something far more deeply interfused,
Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns,
And the round ocean and the living air,
And the blue sky, and in the mind of man:
A motion and a spirit, that impels
All thinking things, all objects of all thought,
And rolls through all things.
...

Now, if that's not fourteen important lines, I have misunderstood completely about the sonnet.
And from what I've told you, is this a Petrarchan or Shakespearean sonnet?
I should have written my exam on Wordsworth's dramatic monologue, and I'll regret not doing that forever...
I'll be back with more, in the meantime, have a great weekend.

The Matrix

I cannot stress how much I enjoy the three Matrix films, and yet I feel I have to defend myself. I have heard it time and again how the first film was a strike of genius, and the last two merely bleak copies.
I beg to disagree, and I'll try to explain why.
The first film is brilliant, and most fans of The Matrix would be on my side. The film, when it first came, was new, it was different from everything else, and the actors were not Hollywood polished, they were so much more. The story was hard to get, but not in a way that made you give up. I wanted to understand, I wanted to find the secrets to The Matrix.
I remember sitting in the movie theatre filling up with emotions I didn't know I had, how I instinctively knew the film had to be close to magic, and how it still touches me on several levels. And so far I know you all hear me! But what about the other two? I'll try to unravel that by asking even more questions, as it is the questions that drives us...

What is the Matrix?
And why is it that only the first film is considered genius?
My personal opinion is that the three films has to be seen as one whole story, and indeed that's what the Wachowski brothers had in mind.
The story, every single factor, balls to bones, was ready before making the first film. During the time it took from one to two they had in mind that the technology would become even better. But then they simply decided to make the rest in one go as they figured technology was as good as it would get. Maybe they were wrong, maybe not, but there you go. How do I know this? I have a book about The Matrix, and it tells in detail about the road from storyboard to film.
But for those of my readers that need a proof of the visual kind, then watch the first film again, and pay close attention to the first time Neo is caught by Agent Smith. Before the "interrogation" we see Neo through the screens of The Architect. Remember The Architect from film two, the one hiding behind the door only The One can go through? YES, that Architect, and I can assure you they are the same screens...

But the first film is a more philosophical film than the other two. You have the question on wether Neo is the one or not. But once that fact has been established you can't very well bring back that question. The story has to move on. And they don't for one second try to make the first film again, no they actually move on. This is where the criticism comes in, I think. People wanted the first film again, but then why not watch the first film again.
I'll agree that the two last films are more in the shape of action films than a philosophic journey, and probably more clear cut and comprehensive than the first. But they also are the next logic step. First they are establishing that they have the means to fight back, and then the war starts.
We can still locate the philosophy if we want to :-) There are several stages of existence throughout the films (this is Neo in particular, but changes like this are present in all of the principal characters).
Neo's change from prisoner of the Matrix to a member of the free world.
Neo's change from member of the free world to a prophesied savior.
Neo's change from a prophesied savior to a warrior.
Neo's change from a warrior to a Messiah.
Neo's change from a Messiah to a prisoner of the Matrix, thus fulfilling the prophesy about him, finally ending the war.

Now, can we detect any kind of symbolism in Matrix... Well, duh!
I think one can find symbolism in every single frame. And also references to literature and philosophy. I'm seeing Samuel Becket's Endgame, I'm seeing the Bible, I'm seeing Shakespeare (Hamlet, Othello, The Tempest etc), I see Descartes and Hegel. I see a comment on dictatorships around the world... And I can probably keep looking and keep finding deeper meanings for as long as I wish.

So what if Morpheus and Agent Smith speaks in capital letters the entire trilogy, so what if Neo has one facial expression (if that), so what if Trinity is more bad ass than any woman ever alive,  so what if there are some cliché's used time and again, so what if the second and third film are more action films than the enigmatic first film, so what if it is yet another version of Christian stories regarding resurrection (among other things) and freedom of choice and so on, so what that most of the movies are basically green (notice that there is a green filter whenever they're in the Matrix)!
The world of film will never be the same.
And even if I don't have the answers, I urge you to look at the three films as one...because they are :-) Further I hope to get a few comments on this if you disagree, or even if you agree... because I would love to learn more...

So, what is the Matrix?
One of the most significant movie trilogies in the world.
Have a great weekend!