[Note to students: The following "sonnet rules" are to be taken with a grain of salt. I post them here to illustrate a kind of criticism that was especially popular early in the 1900s, where rules for writers were defined in great detail. For instance, many of the guidelines of number 17 seem especially amusing today.]
. . . We shall now endeavour to set down for the benefit of whom it may concern a complete canon of the modern English sonnet. The rules in italic are imperative; those in Roman type are essential to perfection.
Sonnets have been written with the avowed purpose of creating sheer music and beauty, free of appeal to the emotions or moral nature. Objection is taken to these on the ground that they are deficient in doctrinal suggestion or quality. We agree up to a point. At the same time it seems probable that beauty, beautifully expressed, has a doctrinal force, and when they are not too fantastically conceived, which is their common demerit, exercises in this kind may attain marked excellence.
A kind of sonnet of description and observation combined with humorous or cynical commentary has been put forward by certain modern writers. It is clear that such sonnets can in no circumstances amount to high poetry, and therefore, while sometimes entertaining, they are negligible as contributions to sonnet-literature.
Many of the foregoing rules will appear so obvious that it may be considered superfluous to set them out. Yet there is not a single one of them which has not been violated by the sonneteers. Quite outside all questions of metricism and poetic, we must remember that anything which is bad in prose is bad in poetry, and anything which is bad in poetry is unpardonable in the sonnet.