Josephine writes:
>
>So far I'm finding writing to a set format the equivalent of
>painting by numbers. I drew me up a table of ten columns
>(one per syllable) and fourteen lines - and then tried
>filling in the squares. Not good. Trying to squash the sense
>into a set line length and rhyme ending is excrutiating. I'm
>not even thinking about the beat.
>
If you don't mind a bit of advice, I think you're going the wrong way about
it. The beat is far more important than the syllables (unless you're writing
syllabic verse, but even for that you need to be in the habit of thinking
rhythmically). You'd be hard pushed to find a 'regular' sonnet that actually
has ten syllables in every line. And don't try to squash your (already
decided) content into a set format - there has to be some give and take
between what you want to say and what the form is allowing / inducing you to
say. You never end up writing exactly what you intended - the process is one
of discovery.
If you're not experienced in writing metrical verse, I would suggest that a
sonnet is a hard place to start. I start my students off with tetrameter
couplets:
Had we but world enough and time
This coyness, lady, were no crime...
or ballad metre:
While shepherds watched their flocks by night
All seated on the ground,
The angel of the Lord came down
And glory shone around.
(only rhyming the second and fourth lines of each stanza.)
Best wishes
Matthew
|