The Will to Science

[dukealien]

The Will to Science

Edit2

  Will, to Science, is a supplicant,
Though oft we hear of Nature bent to will;
Researchers’ theories will the truth they want,
But Nature’s answers may affirm - or kill.

  Some will feign attention, but create,
Instead of listening, what they wish to hear -
Forged confirmations, lest their theories’ fate
Prove ignominious, as they rightly fear.

  Nature can’t be forced: she must be wooed,
Respectfully, nor her consent assumed.
Each theory’s one love-letter: never brood
On its rejection.  Mend, where you presumed!

    But oh, the joy of Nature’s earned assent,
    Dissolving dread of disillusionment!


Edit1


  Will, to Science, is a supplicant,
Though oft we hear of Nature bent to will;
Researchers’ theories will the truth they want,
But Nature’s answers may affirm - or kill.

  Some pretend to research, but create,
Instead of listening, what they wish to hear;
They stitch false data, lest their theories’ fate
Prove ignominious, as they rightly fear.

  Nature can’t be forced: she must be wooed,
Respectfully, nor her consent assumed.
Each theory’s one love-letter: never brood
On its rejection.  Mend, where you presumed!

    But oh, the joy of Nature’s earned assent,
    Dissolving dread of disillusionment!



Original version


  Will, to Science, is a supplicant,
Though oft we hear of Nature bent to will;
Researchers’ theories will the truth they want,
But Nature, answering, can assent or kill.

  Some pretend to research, but create,
Instead of listening, what they wish to hear;
They paint false data, lest their theories’ fate
Prove ignominious, as they rightly fear.

  Nature can’t be forced: she must be wooed,
Respectfully, nor her consent assumed.
Each theory’s a love-letter: never brood
On its rejection.  Mend, where you presumed!

    But oh, the joy of Nature’s earned assent,
    Dissolving dread of disillusionment!

---

Archaisms, etc. are intentional (though not byond criticism) - Modified Shakespearean, as was Francis Bacon who invented science as we know it.

[Leanne]

Hi dukealien, nice to see a sonnet I am particularly fond of your third stanza and couplet, both in word choice and sentiment.

Your meter falls down in a couple of places:

L4 has an extra syllable and no matter how I elide, it won't be squished into IP. I have a couple of quick suggestions: "But Nature, in reply, may bless or kill", "But her reply may ratify or kill", or something along those lines.

L6 I do have to elide "list'ning", which in my accent would be three syllables, but that's a regional thing and perfectly fine to ignore... I'm just sayin' Similarly L11 took me a couple of goes to realise that you're saying "the'ry" -- but that's slightly problematic, because it then puts the stress on "a", which is a bit of a waste. Again, in my accent, I could fit it into IP with "Each theory's a love-note". Your call as always -- you should write as you say it. I've just learned over the years that most of my audience has a different accent to mine, so I try to avoid ambiguity in the meter.

You do use "assent" twice, which might be something to address as there's no point served by its repetition.

Thanks for the read

[Achebe]

Assuming that not everything posted in this forum is an attempt at a new Four Quartets, this is a nice little piece.
The meter looks broadly OK to me: where syllables fall short, pauses do the work as in L9.
You need to fix L5, which is far too irregular and uses 'research' as a verb, which is odd...

[Leanne]

Oddly enough, L5 scans ok for me as a trochee to start, and I say "REsearch", so it fits the meter (just wondering why it can't be a verb...?)

Sorry, duke & ron, I'm a meter whore so I have to weigh in whenever there's a scansion debate. Yes, I have no life.

[Achebe]

You're Rita the meter maid from Sgt Peppers!

Sorry, what I meant was that "research", like "solve", sounds odd when used as a verb without an object, being a transitive verb when used thus.
I may be wrong.
Actually, capitalising the "R" changes the meaning a bit and makes the "to" fit.

I thought L5 was 9 syllables, L1 8, and the rest iambic pentameter (mostly).
It sounds ok, but isn't a Shakespearian sonnet supposed to be in all iambic?

[Leanne]

No, there are plenty of acceptable substitutions as long as it's principally iambic. Even Shakespeare did it -- loads of times, actually.

There are a few posts around the place about IP subs but here's a nice summary by milo: http://www.pigpenpoetry.com/thread-11169...stitutions

[dukealien]

I thought L5 was 9 syllables, L1 8, and the rest iambic pentameter (mostly).
It sounds ok, but isn't a Shakespearian sonnet supposed to be in all iambic?

Perhaps, but seeing as how Shakespeare was notoriously negligent in this regard,
I don't see slavishness as at all necessary. Doubled short syllables, omitted ones,
various pauses and 'danglers' on the end... he was a sordid beast in this regard.
Thank the gods, for his sake, he's come to be revered.

I did fix L4 in Edit1 so it no longer requires "ansring."

Concerning the 9-syllable first lines of each quatrain, I originally had "The will to science..." in L1 (hence the title), but found I was using an obvious filler as the unstressed first syllable in the first line of each of the others (too), so cut them all, on the theory that starting off with an accented first syllable portrays the aggressive nature of scientific inquiry.  [That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.]

FWIW, I'm new at this, but lately tend to use modified sonnet forms like this modified Shakespearean and an altered Spenserian with the couplets in the middle of the quatrains instead of spanning them.  I even have one floating around on this site which consists of seven heroic couplets - no one seemed to mind.  Substitution (of different feet for iambs) is harder, but I'm trying to learn.  That, and free verse.

---

Hi dukealien, nice to see a sonnet  I am particularly fond of your third stanza and couplet, both in word choice and sentiment.  

Your meter falls down in a couple of places:

L4 has an extra syllable and no matter how I elide, it won't be squished into IP. I have a couple of quick suggestions: "But Nature, in reply, may bless or kill", "But her reply may ratify or kill", or something along those lines.

L6 I do have to elide "list'ning", which in my accent would be three syllables, but that's a regional thing and perfectly fine to ignore... I'm just sayin'  Similarly L11 took me a couple of goes to realise that you're saying "the'ry" -- but that's slightly problematic, because it then puts the stress on "a", which is a bit of a waste.  Again, in my accent, I could fit it into IP with "Each theory's a love-note".  Your call as always -- you should write as you say it.  I've just learned over the years that most of my audience has a different accent to mine, so I try to avoid ambiguity in the meter.

You do use "assent" twice, which might be something to address as there's no point served by its repetition.

Thanks for the read

Thank you very much for the good critique.  I thought well of that poem, but you pointed out some serious problems.

(Tried to post this thank-you earlier, but it seems to have vanished)  First try at remedies is in Edit1.

Briefly, yes, I do vocalize "theory" as two syllables.  I'll leave it that way despite the dialect problem, partly because it's at least consistent (always has two in this poem) and partly because replacing it with "hypothesis" presents serious problems.  "Thesis" would work but doesn't quite mean the same - besides, the plural sounds a little dirty.

Fixed lines 4 and 11, 4 to eliminate both "ansring" and the duplicated "assent," and 11 using the military maxim of attacking a weak point to turn it into a position of strength.  Substituting "one" for "a" stresses that more than one love-letter is often required in order to prevail.

Which allows L 13 to stand without changing "assent" to "consent" or flipping the meaning to make "dissent" available.

Thanks again... hope this is not now a double post.

[Leanne]

Starting the poem on the trochee with "Will" is an excellent use of emphasis, and exactly the right decision in my opinion.  

The more I read it, the more I'm loving your use of "ignominious"

"One" fixes the "a" stress problem nicely, well done.  And I do like "affirm" instead of "assent" -- these are great edits.

[dukealien]

Starting the poem on the trochee with "Will" is an excellent use of emphasis, and exactly the right decision in my opinion.  

The more I read it, the more I'm loving your use of "ignominious"

"One" fixes the "a" stress problem nicely, well done.  And I do like "affirm" instead of "assent" -- these are great edits.

Thank you kindly.  When editing my own stuff, I find I can read it twenty times over several weeks and make improvements - but never spot obvious errors and problems.  Whereas a second set of eyes picks them right up, directing my meager talent where it's needed.

[ThePen]

The Will to Science


Edit1


  Will, to Science, is a supplicant,
Though oft we hear of Nature bent to will;
Researchers’ theories will the truth they want,
But Nature’s answers may affirm - or kill.

  Some pretend to research, but create,
Instead of listening, what they wish to hear;
They stitch false data, lest their theories’ fate
Prove ignominious, as they rightly fear.

  Nature can’t be forced: she must be wooed,
Respectfully, nor her consent assumed.
Each theory’s one love-letter: never brood
On its rejection.  Mend, where you presumed!

    But oh, the joy of Nature’s earned assent,
    Dissolving dread of disillusionment!



Original version


  Will, to Science, is a supplicant,
Though oft we hear of Nature bent to will;
Researchers’ theories will the truth they want,
But Nature, answering, can assent or kill.

  Some pretend to research, but create,
Instead of listening, what they wish to hear;
They paint false data, lest their theories’ fate
Prove ignominious, as they rightly fear.

  Nature can’t be forced: she must be wooed,
Respectfully, nor her consent assumed.
Each theory’s a love-letter: never brood
On its rejection.  Mend, where you presumed!

    But oh, the joy of Nature’s earned assent,
    Dissolving dread of disillusionment!

---

Archaisms, etc. are intentional (though not byond criticism) - Modified Shakespearean, as was Francis Bacon who invented science as we know it.

Your poem is good. I like that you stuck to your rhyming scheme A/B A/B. I think that at the beginning there is quite a bit of intellectualism with the use of "theories", "research", and "data". And then, in the end, you seem to actually personify nature, which seems to depart from your theme of science.

Maybe you could use a more apt title?

[dukealien]

The Will to Science


Edit1


  Will, to Science, is a supplicant,
Though oft we hear of Nature bent to will;
Researchers’ theories will the truth they want,
But Nature’s answers may affirm - or kill.

  Some pretend to research, but create,
Instead of listening, what they wish to hear;
They stitch false data, lest their theories’ fate
Prove ignominious, as they rightly fear.

  Nature can’t be forced: she must be wooed,
Respectfully, nor her consent assumed.
Each theory’s one love-letter: never brood
On its rejection.  Mend, where you presumed!

    But oh, the joy of Nature’s earned assent,
    Dissolving dread of disillusionment!

(snip)

---

Archaisms, etc. are intentional (though not byond criticism) - Modified Shakespearean, as was Francis Bacon who invented science as we know it.

Your poem is good. I like that you stuck to your rhyming scheme A/B A/B. I think that at the beginning there is quite a bit of intellectualism with the use of "theories", "research", and "data". And then, in the end, you seem to actually personify nature, which seems to depart from your theme of science.

Maybe you could use a more apt title?

Thank you for the read and critique.  You raise an interesting point about the title:  it was originally the first four words of the first line, but I dropped "The" there while leaving it in the title.  Removing "The" from the title wouldn't make a great deal of difference, though, and what you're really suggesting is that the title misleads about the poem's program, or (in the rest of your critique) that the poem's program is inconsistent from top to bottom.

My program is, of course, to draw the reader into the metaphor of seeking truth as courting a lady of quality.  The second quatrain departs from this project to pursue one of my pet peeves about contemporary science (fake data, which can be constructed in a number of ways - running five surveys and only citing the one which shows an agreeable trend, "homogenizing" data to suggest your thesis is correct, etc.).  It really should be made clear how this is like intentinally mistaking the lady's response to proposals (not to say propositions) as favorable when they're not - a staple of farce, but potentially deadly in drug research.

This suggests how the middle of the sonnet could be improved.  The title could be changed to more effectively draw the reader in, so as to capture his suggestible attention for the final quatrain.  I'm not sure how to implement  either of these desiderata, but will think on them.  Thanks again for your critique!

[dukealien]

Edit2

  Will, to Science, is a supplicant,
Though oft we hear of Nature bent to will;
Researchers’ theories will the truth they want,
But Nature’s answers may affirm - or kill.

  Some will feign attention, but create,
Instead of listening, what they wish to hear -
Forged confirmations, lest their theories’ fate
Prove ignominious, as they rightly fear.

  Nature can’t be forced: she must be wooed,
Respectfully, nor her consent assumed.
Each theory’s one love-letter: never brood
On its rejection.  Mend, where you presumed!

    But oh, the joy of Nature’s earned assent,
    Dissolving dread of disillusionment!

---

@ThePen - I've tried to address your critique in this revision (and, in the process, may have fixed some problems pointed out in others').  Partially rewriting the second quatrain has eliminated the problematic "pretend to research" which caused confusion as to its accents because it could be either noun or verb.  (It also uses "will" again, but all at the expense of an archaic "feign" - after "oft," might be overload.)  The other rewrite in that quatrain tries to make the courting metaphor more tenable (forging favorable replies to one's own love-letters is rather demented, but so is  cherry-picking data).

I've left the title as is.  "Will to Science" is no improvement, and a more honest variant ("Will and Science") doesn't seem to grab as well.

Thanks to all who have read and critiqued!

Edit: Oops! I see ThePen is banned... hope I'm allowed to respond to that critique!