Trois-par-Huit (Three-by-Eight) Octa-Tri, New form by Cleo Options

[Cleo_Serapis]

Hi all.  

I've just created this new poetic form today. I am dubbing it Trois-par-Huit (Three-by-Eight or Octa-Tri). It  is a poem containing 8 lines, displayed visually with three stanzas of either tercet, tercet, couplet  (3, 3, 2) OR tercet, couplet, tercet (3, 2, 3) as follows;


1. The title is also the final line.

The line length requirements:
Line 1 ~ 3 syllables
Line 2 ~ 6 syllables
Line 3 ~ 9 syllables

Lines 4 & 5 ~ 12 syllables

Line 6 ~ 9 syllables
Line 7 ~ 6 syllables
Line 8 ~ 3 syllables (is the title and summarizes the meaning of the poem)

The rhyme scheme requirements:
Line 1. A
Line 2. A
Line 3. B
Line 4. B
Line 5. B
Line 6. C
Line 7. C
Line 8. C

Give it a try!


~Cleo  

UPDATE: Daniel has dubbed the form: Trois-par-Huit (Three-by-Eight) and I've just changed the stanza alignment to 3/2/3 as well....

Nature's King


The firs rise
touching star-twinkled skies
standing vigil o’er evening’s glow

wrapped in sparkling charms of glitter gold, ashen snow
embraces kisses of crimson berries below

where silvery cherubs dance and sing
…symbols of joy to bring
Nature’s King.


© 2004 Lorraine M Kanter

[JustDaniel]

Thank you, James.  

I assure you that nothing that you said upset me in any way.  Both your comments and silence elsewhere convinced me that my attempt at an extremely important subject that I teach almost daily to my clients did NOT communicate seriously at all in the vernacular in which I'd originally composed it.  Honestly, I was simply embarrassed by it ( not your comments or request! )... and that some seem to think that I was just trivializing Cleo's form right from the start!  Nothing could be further from reality, so I just wanted to remove something that I now see could be interpreted in that way. I'm truly sorry for that, because that could not be further from my intent.  I simply dismally failed in my first draft AND stirred things unintentionally. I do hope you see that if I thought "Three-by-Eight" were a trivial form, I certainly wouldn't have gone to the trouble of offering a more accurate title-suggestion for it... or given a partial description of the form with a piece written in its (original) form! I'm afraid that I again stumbled over my own stupid tongue, and believe me, it hurts!

Therefore I thought it best merely to eliminate the first try to at least assuage some inkling of the doubt.  I here offer another try.  I'm not sure that this accomplishes my goal either, but at least it's in plain standard American speech until the end.  I hope that "Suh" is understood as Americana "Sir" and that the variant of pro bono is also acceptible in the vernacular of the closing tercet.  "Gonna" among my clients is now a by-word, so it is essential if I'm going to accomplish this in Trois-par-Huit... which I may or may not be able to do.  And there aren't many rhyme choices for "Gonna"... so I'm just gonna try again.

So... please be assured that I always appreciate your input, especially when you're right to the point.  And know that your words on this were HELPful... not HURTful.  Thanks IMMENSELY.

You’re Gonna

Most folks think
choice one’s Do  ~ choice two’s Wink
Wink fogs eyes to plain facts; Do ’s a Must

Bubble-blowing dreams of denial bloom… then bust
unmasking horrific harm ‘neath avoidance-dust

You’ll find “…Or Not”  won’t work pro bona
“Just Do it!”  choice warns… “Suh…
You’re Gonna!”

© Daniel J Ricketts 08 Dec 2004

P.S. to Cleo:

Honestly, I do like the original tercet, tercet, couplet more.  I think it is consistent with introducing a new rhyme in the prior stanza throughout that way. It also give a smidgen of the flavor of the summary couplet of a sonnet.

Of course I bow to your choice, as you see in my offering here...  but I'd really be interested in knowing why you made the change in the division. It almost looks to me in the present format that line three's rhyme could be viewed as a mistake.  I'll be very interested in discovering what went into your decision... and may I say that I'd love to see you reverse it!

But I ain't arguin'!  I love the form, whatever you do with it, and I'd love to be able to play with it (in the serious sense of that word, of course) right along with you.

P.P.S.  OOPS!!!  I see that I misunderstood your "as well" to mean that that was the change you made as well... namely to 3 2 3, but I see (from seeing now the change in the text ABOVE it, that you've made it optional!  I fully agree with that. I'd totally missed the earlier posts by Liz and James, suggesting the option, since I'd returned to the tile after there was a second page, and I continued from there without looking back, except to your initial post.  

Reading is a gigantic hurdle for me, Lori.  Please forgive my slowness! I'm really trying... and I know that it sometimes makes me trying to folks!  I don't even have to try for that to happen, it seems.

Respectfully always.  You KNOW that I think you're a writing genius!

Hugs and a sigh, Daniel